|
Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum II Archive #
6 |
From:
Feb 13, 1998 |
To:
Feb 20, 1998 |
Page:
5
Of:
5 |
|
Jim -:- premie dinner party -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 23:08:52 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 23:35:01 (EST)
___X -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 00:57:15 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 09:58:11 (EST)
___Jimj -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 14:05:06 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 14:49:35 (EST)
___elena -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 16:13:26 (EST)
___Selena -:- elena -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 16:15:11 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 16:23:38 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 17:01:32 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 17:18:46 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 17:24:43 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 18:49:51 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 19:43:52 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 20:28:06 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 20:34:36 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 20:52:57 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 20:59:31 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:17:39 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:27:58 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:34:41 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:40:54 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:58:27 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 22:16:00 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 22:17:13 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 22:22:13 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 23:01:33 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 01:21:56 (EST)
___Mili -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 03:20:22 (EST)
___Brian -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 10:14:38 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 11:18:49 (EST)
___Mili -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 11:51:18 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 12:16:36 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 12:28:56 (EST)
___Mili -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 13:00:36 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 14:16:00 (EST)
___Katie -:- Sorry! -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 14:20:28 (EST)
___Mili -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 16:05:02 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 21:49:26 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 23:22:53 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 11:35:43 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: premie dinner party -:- Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 14:54:56 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 18:31:31 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 19:00:08 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 09:23:03 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 10:09:48 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 11:18:22 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 12:06:02 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 14:28:34 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 14:30:05 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 15:08:20 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 15:16:39 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 15:24:18 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 17:19:24 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 17:44:16 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 17:47:09 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 17:56:26 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 17:56:46 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Chris and Jim -:- Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 18:02:44 (EST)
Brian -:- Paradise is the pits -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 14:21:10 (EST)
___Brian -:- Re: Paradise is the pits -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 14:35:45 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Paradise is the pits -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 15:56:52 (EST)
___VP -:- Trouble, too -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 16:56:25 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: Trouble, too -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 17:58:37 (EST)
___Brian -:- Re: Paradise is the pits -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 15:19:41 (EST)
___Katie -:- Thanks to Brian -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:06:34 (EST)
Scott T. -:- A not-so-little trick -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 10:46:31 (EST)
___Selena -:- Re: A not-so-little trick -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 12:28:04 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: A not-so-little trick -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 14:15:28 (EST)
___oiluesrdtgyuhi -:- A not-so-little trick -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 15:09:59 (EST)
___John K. -:- Re: A not-so-little trick -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 17:28:57 (EST)
___X -:- Re: A not-so-little trick -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 17:37:23 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: A not-so-little trick -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 17:54:17 (EST)
___An Ex with an Axe to grind -:- A Mango's Taste -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 12:47:19 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: A Mango's Taste -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 13:15:45 (EST)
___Katie off topic -:- Re: A not-so-little trick -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 13:31:09 (EST)
___John K. -:- Re: A not-so-little trick -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 14:36:26 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: A not-so-little trick -:- Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 14:52:33 (EST)
___ex-mug -:- Re: A Mango's Taste -:- Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 06:19:35 (EST)
Brian -:- Forum Reset -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 06:41:01 (EST)
___david -:- Re: Forum Reset -:- Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 23:54:28 (EST)
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 23:08:52 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email: heller@islandnet.com
To: Everyone
Subject: premie dinner party
Message:
Last night I got together with some old premie friends that I hadn't seen in years. Kathy Beeson, who I'd bumped into last week, gave me Paul Gobes' number. He gave me John Bufton's and both of them, along with John's girlfriend, Joanne (cult member since '78), met Kathy and me at -- where else? -- an Indian restaurant.
It was great. We joked, reminisced, gossiped, caught up. It'd been years since I'd seen either Paul or John, both of whom, along with Kathy, were 'big brothers' (or 'sister') to me when I got ensnared in '73. My last memory of John was of a time he and I were sent to some canyon north of the city to get a bottle of fresh spring water for Maharaji. He was visiting Toronto. We shipped it by plane, I think. I recall the crisp, misty beauty of that canyon, late afternoon. Quiet nature, nothing but the holiest, secret sound of Maharaji whispering love through my nostrils.
At one point I asked everyone 'how many people here think Maharaji's a fraud?' I was the only one who put up my hand. 'Okay, how many people think Maharaji's Lord of the Universe.' No takers. People were confused, not achingly but confused all the same. I'd told Paul about the web site the night before and he spent a few hours checking it out. He read Mishler. He DIDN'T read my fake interview with Maharaji (??). He found it 'interesting.' I felt like I was sewing seeds of doubt.
Then, just before we left for my hotel to hang out further, Leon dropped by. Leon was another of my 'big brothers' before Millenium. Leon was coming from an introductory program at the library.
Leon, unlike the others, was touchy. 'Wasn't it weird,' I asked him ' that here we were, 25 years later, no world peace, no realzed souls and no, absolutely no explanation from Maharaji?'
'No' he said, 'Maharaji's been the one consistent thing in his life.'
'But, Leon' I insisted 'isn't he really the most inconsistent person you've ever heard of? Haven't you fallen prey to the biggest 'bait-and-switch' routine of all time?'
'Jim, let's just agree to disagree.'
'Leon, if only I'd known 25 years ago that you felt so little responsibility for what you said and did. Live and learn, huh?'
Leon's a psychologist.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 23:35:01 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Cruel of you to upset their little tea party; no one can have a good pretend around you. You could be very effective at a guru program, mixing about and disturbing people with provocative ideas but not being aggressive enough to get ejected.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 00:57:15 (EST)
Poster: X
Email:
To: Rick
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Effective at disturbing people?
So thats how you get your kicks and feel satisfied.
But, I doubt you will do well beyond your cheap secret voyeur chuckle.
What provocative ideas?
Oh, your joking again!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 09:58:11 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jim
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
So, Jim, are you going to do all your propagation face-to-face now (like M), or are you still going to use the Internet (like M won't) ? We like having you around (well, some of us do).
Take care
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 14:05:06 (EST)
Poster: Jimj
Email:
To: X
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Are you afraid to use your name? Why? Yes, some of the ex's post anonymously. They've got their reasons. What's yours?
Anyway, I'm not at all into disturbing people per se. But I am into flushing out the truth about our fake fanatical religion. Naturally, that means butting heads from time to time with people who avoid or even lie about the past. You got a better idea?
Anyway, you read my little account wrong. I wasn't there for bad vibes and, indeed, it was a great night. We all laughed and enjoyed the hell out of each other. The only prickly moment was the one I described with Leon. Can't you see the difference? Some of the others, while not (yet?) willing to denounce Maharaji, were at least honest in discussing him. How about you?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 14:49:35 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Hi Katie,
I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have but I'll definitely be here to some extent.
Jim
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 16:13:26 (EST)
Poster: elena
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
'Leon's a psychologist'
Hopefully he is not involved in direct client treatment!
Your post sounds so familiar. Is there any point to talking to them about M? It's sort of like talking to my more right wing co-workers abou tthe Clinton mess. I have decided not to bother talking to premies about M. Although, I can understand wanting to, it's just not worth it to me. Actually, I have very little occasion to talk to them at all, living in a hick town with a premie community of about 8 hangers-on.
Happy V day everybody! Now that we have seen the weirder sides of love, we are in a better place to experience other, hopefully more human, aspects.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 16:15:11 (EST)
Poster: Selena
Email:
To: Selena
Subject: elena (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
That last post was from me. Missed typing in the S
elena is a nice name too, but Selena is much closer to my real name.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 16:23:38 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: elena
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
I must have done a bad job describing the evening. Really, it was great. And it WAS worth talking to these guys about Maharaji. I could see the wheels turning a bit and that felt worthwhile. All this trip is going to be worth to us for the rest of our lives is a few laughs. And no one better to share them than our fellow vets.
The Leon's of the world offer less satisfaction, of course. Yes, he does have a clinical practise. You know what's even stranger, though? Apparently Greta Van Susteran is an Scientologist.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 17:01:32 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: X
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Chris (in hiding):
In this realm, I get my kicks in discussing Maharaji and my experience as one of his faithful for several years. I don't think you know what I'm talking about because I don't think you've ever risked trying it. You've lurked and offered your inconsequential nothings for almost two years here. Never have you actually engaged anyone in discussion, however. Will you ever? Who knows? Who cares? You seem satisfied with your cultivated superficiality. Sad but, as they say, it's your life.
Should I tell them about the time you called me before New Years? You'd said you'd call seomtime before the end of the year and, sure enough, you did. The funny thing is you wouldn't stay on the line long enough to actually talk. It was 'Hi Jim. I said I'd call. Well, here I am. You don't sound so unfriendly on the phone. Maybe we can talk again sometime.' Remember?
Is that how you interact with everyone?
What particularly irks me is your questions. Like below where you say 'very adept analysis but, tell me, can you describe the taste of a mango?' What right do you have to ask anyone anything when you refuse to be engaged? Do you actually expect someone to answer your questions? Why should they? You rarely answer any posed to you and, when you do, you usually sidestep the issue. So, really, who are you to ask anyone anything? That is extremely rude behaviour, Chris. Smarten up.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 17:18:46 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
I must have done a bad job describing the evening. Really, it was great. And it WAS worth talking to these guys about Maharaji. I could see the wheels turning a bit and that felt worthwhile. All this trip is going to be worth to us for the rest of our lives is a few laughs. And no one better to share them than our fellow vets.
The Leon's of the world offer less satisfaction, of course. Yes, he does have a clinical practise. You know what's even stranger, though? Apparently Greta Van Susteran is an Scientologist.
Your account did sound a little edgy to me, but I might've read it wrong; I was ribbing you anyway. What's the scoop on Greta being a Scientologist? It's easy for me to believe.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 17:24:43 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Rick
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Just that I read it in a CNN website article about celebrity Scientologists. You say you're not surprised. Why? I sure am. I'm always amazed to find someone with obviously working critical faculties falling for bullshit. Oh I know there are countless examples. I still find it surprising.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 18:49:51 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
>I don't think you know what I'm talking about because I don't think you've ever risked trying it.
Jim,
What I see is that your method of 'trying' didn't seem to work so now you have switched to a campaign of blame.
>You've lurked and offered your inconsequential nothings for almost two years here.
I don't tow the line of your BS and slander.
Too bad Mr. Lawyer.
>Should I tell them about the time you called me before New Years?
You just did.
But that is your style.
No suprises here.
>Chris. Smarten up.
Sure!
Glad you had a nice dinner with your friends besides getting your weak story.
Mission accomplished.
CD
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 19:43:52 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Jim,fwiw:I for one felt that your comments on what cd's posts have consisted of over the past couple of years were bang on!His responding with a cheap, absolutely and utterly irrelevant 'lawyer' shot was not unexpected.
Sorry cd,but I really think that you've got jim pegged all wrong,and I generally don't have negative things to say about anyones posts,but your response to jim actually angered me.Perhaps anger is not the right word,frustration is more like it.
The only question I have for you after reading your posts for close to two years is: do you consciously intend to frustrate?I ask because it has often seemed like that's the case.You know;like it's your m/o or something.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 20:28:06 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: CD
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Chris,
You wrote:
>What I see is that your method of 'trying' didn't seem to work so now you have switched to a campaign of blame.
What the hell are you talking about? I've not only tried, I've actually succeeded in having not one, but many, good converstations about your screwy cult leader. Indeed Chris, we all have. Moreover, you've actually lurked and chimed in on many of them.
No, Chris, my point was that YOU haven't tried to discuss things, that's all. Come on, you know that's true. Or do you say otherwise? Would you say that you've ever once engaged anyone in a real conversation here? I'd be amazed if you thought so.
Chris, the net -- like life -- is full of examples of people of varying viewpoints talking about things. Why, you can stroll over to talk.origins and find the creationists duking it out with the evolutionists. Know what I mean? People have different opinions and they discuss them. That is unless they're afraid to. In that case, they take cheap little pot shots.
See, now you've got bftb (Croatian?) asking the same question we all ask of you from time to time: what's your trip?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 20:34:36 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: bftb
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Bftb,
Your parents didn't need to do that to you. I'm so sorry. But, anyway, your question to Chris must make Katie laugh. She tried to ask him the exact same thing six months ago. She'd seen me really lose it on Chris for provoking that same frustration and she really wanted to know. Was Chris just playing games? Was he brain-damaged? Whaddup?
So she asked him. If I recall, he answered quite curtly, telling Katie to 'mind her own business' or or words to that effect. And no, he never did answer. Best of luck!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 20:52:57 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Just that I read it in a CNN website article about celebrity Scientologists. You say you're not surprised. Why? I sure am. I'm always amazed to find someone with obviously working critical faculties falling for bullshit. Oh I know there are countless examples. I still find it surprising.
I've found Scientologists are usually clear thinkers about things other than Scientology, and from what I've understood, they respect the 'analytic mind'. In contrast to DLM, they don't reach for a drug-like altered state and participate in education, arts and culture. My distaste has always been with their emotionlessness and whatever bizarre tricks they do to attain it. I'm aware of their twisted notions about creation, their ripoff methods of selling their snake oil, and their vindictiveness and lack of ethics, but they seem long on success and the attributes that go with it. The Scientologists I've known and known of, usually don't falter much, just as Greta doesn't.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 20:59:31 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jim
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Hi Jim,
Just to set the record straight, I don't think Chris ever told me to mind my own business. (Plus I never asked him if he was brain-damaged! Come on!) I have to admit that Chris doesn't seem to ever answer direct questions about Maharaji or knowledge. I'm not sure why, either.
But as far as Chris being on the forum, I have no problem with him being on here, as you probably already know.
Regards from Katie
P.S. bftb = bystander from the beginning (in case you didn't know). The other pseudonym option was Bob Dobbs, but I prefer bftb. It's kind of like that guy in Little Abner - remember him? Joe Bftsplk?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:17:39 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Rick
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Interesting. The little I know about Scientology implies a few things. First, a Scientologist must be someone who could read Dianetics without falling over -- asleep or laughing. It's the emptiest, most superficial and innacurate book imaginable. So how could someone like Greta, seemingly sharp and educated, think otherwise?
Here's a Hubbard quote from a website hawking 'Advanced Diantetics':
'A high-tone individual thinks wholly into the future. He is extroverted toward his environment. He clearly observes the environment with full perception unclouded by undistinguished fears about the environment. He thinks very little about himself but operates automatically in his own interests. He enjoys existence. His calculations (postulations and evaluations) are swift and accurate.'
Beside being extremely foul writing, it's gobbledygook. For the most part, it has no meaning and, when it does, it makes no sense. Maybe I'm just not a 'high-tone individual.' On the other hand, maybe Hubbard was just a bad Science Fiction author turned cult leader.
Still, Rick, your point about Scientologists having more of their minds than we did makes sense. Just a different poisonous fantasy, I guess. We were little love bears and they are courageous thetans preparing to take over the earth.
My favorite Scientology bogus teaching is their fomenting warning to never read past a word one doesn't understand. That prime directive, of course, sends you to the Scientology glossary for drivel such as this definition of the word 'communication':
'the interchange of ideas across space. Its fullest definition is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source-point. The formula of communication is cause, distance, effect, with intention, attention and duplication with understanding.'
I don't know. If the mind really was no better than the junky stew Scientologists try to make it, I just might consider giving mine over, lock, stock and barrel, to some fake cult leader who offers empty-headedness like, Applewhite, Mr. Rogers or Maharaji.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:27:58 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Sorry, Katie, you misunderstood. You're right. You didn't ask him if he was brain-damaged. That was something I'll take responsibilty for wondering about. You simply asked him if he was actually trying to communicate here or if, instead, he was trying to be evasive.
His answer, though, wasn't much different than what I've said. First, he didn't answer you. Right? Second, what he did say was something to the effect of 'Be careful, Katie, you don't want to get into an argument with me here. We've got enough of those already.' Please correct me if I'm wrong. I only remember that Chris wouldn't answer and sneered at you for asking. Well?
And I never liked Lil' Abner. I found it too sexist.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:34:41 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jim
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Yeah, you are right, he didn't answer me. I can't remember what he said, but what he usually says (to me) is something to the effect of 'We already have one thing to disagree about, let's not have another'. I don't remember him sneering, but he definitely didn't answer the question. (Chris, are you out there? What did you say, anyway?)
Re: Little Abner - yeah, how could I have forgotten that you must have been the same incredibly non-sexist p.c. guy even back then! My apologies, Jim...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:40:54 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: bftb
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
bftb,
You are right I do frustrate people at times.
Sometimes by accident and at other times, but rarely, on purpose.
I may have made a mistake by responding to Jim's saying that I had never really tried anything and I should smarten up.
But I had the impulse to push back in response.
If you think Jim's description of his supremacy at the dinner party is 'bang on', then that is your choice.
It would be interesting to read some responses from a couple other people at the dinner party to get the complete story.
Of course, they might be suprised to find out how Jim has used them in his post.
I used Mr. Lawyer to refer to Jim because Jim seems to exhibit some of the worst of the classic stereotype of the lawyer who sues at his leisure and pleasure.
I do believe that Jim feels empowered by his legal training to pursue his crusade.
Over the past year I have contributed something to this spot though it may not have been up your alley.
I do have my friends as does Jim and yourself.
My fundamental premise is that ultimate answers do not lie in the realm of rational thought.
This is something that I suspected when I was young.
It has been bolstered by my extensive university education, by what I have learned listening to M and by the interaction of my brain, feelings in my life and obvious infinite extent of space and time.
I do work and brush my teeth, but also am amazed by the wonder of the earth existing in the middle of a space with no end and my own finite but remarkable existence in a world with incredible diversity, evil, beauty and suprises.
Understanding can occur in the inner experience when the mental process calms and the life force manifests in its subtle beauty.
It may have no explanation but neither does any form of infinity.
The simplistic example of the taste of the mango ultimately conveys an understanding of what limits our logic and descriptive capabilities face.
A great tree growing from a small seed should be amazing to all of us but we are dulled by the routine and problems of our daily lives and blinded by the ignorance of newbie technological expertise.
I find math, science, computer science, economics, history and other myriad topics of thought very interesting and useful but do not expect them to deliver the ultimate answers that will provide the most fulfilling experience in life.
Yes, of course the intellectual disciplines have practical value.
People should develop their mental skills and manifest their own unique contributions using those skills.
We are an amazing combination of the physical and mental and the infinite subtle source of life, love and deepest feelings.
It is amazing that we are.
My association with M and his teachings for the last 25 years has been extremely positive and worthwhile.
If a poll were taken at this sight I am sure many would put me in the yes category and many would put me in the no group.
This is a natural consequence of the diversity of human understanding and expression.
Regards,
CD
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:58:27 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Interesting. The little I know about Scientology implies a few things. First, a Scientologist must be someone who could read Dianetics without falling over -- asleep or laughing. It's the emptiest, most superficial and innacurate book imaginable. So how could someone like Greta, seemingly sharp and educated, think otherwise?
Here's a Hubbard quote from a website hawking 'Advanced Diantetics':
'A high-tone individual thinks wholly into the future. He is extroverted toward his environment. He clearly observes the environment with full perception unclouded by undistinguished fears about the environment. He thinks very little about himself but operates automatically in his own interests. He enjoys existence. His calculations (postulations and evaluations) are swift and accurate.'
Beside being extremely foul writing, it's gobbledygook. For the most part, it has no meaning and, when it does, it makes no sense. Maybe I'm just not a 'high-tone individual.' On the other hand, maybe Hubbard was just a bad Science Fiction author turned cult leader.
Still, Rick, your point about Scientologists having more of their minds than we did makes sense. Just a different poisonous fantasy, I guess. We were little love bears and they are courageous thetans preparing to take over the earth.
My favorite Scientology bogus teaching is their fomenting warning to never read past a word one doesn't understand. That prime directive, of course, sends you to the Scientology glossary for drivel such as this definition of the word 'communication':
'the interchange of ideas across space. Its fullest definition is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source-point. The formula of communication is cause, distance, effect, with intention, attention and duplication with understanding.'
I don't know. If the mind really was no better than the junky stew Scientologists try to make it, I just might consider giving mine over, lock, stock and barrel, to some fake cult leader who offers empty-headedness like, Applewhite, Mr. Rogers or Maharaji.
Funny you should mention the directive to never read past a word you don't understand. When you wrote about how boring Hubbard's writing was, I was jokingly going to suggest that you must have skipped over a word you didn't understand. I tried to read 'Dianetics' about ten or fifteen years ago and had the same experience... it was painful. The quote you inserted about communication was amazing. Greta is sharp; maybe it gets better in the advanced courses.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 22:16:00 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: CD
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
CD,
First off I was not referring to the dinner party when I said 'bang on'-I think you misunderstood.In terms of this dinner party I really have no opinion,nor should I.And anyway I wasn't there.
In terms of this You've got friends,I've got friends,he's got friends stuff:I have absolutely no hard feelings towards anyone on this site ever in any way.I don't even feel like I'm on any side,and basically I find this whole forum to be a very interesting and at times even enlightening ongoing conversation.Yes,your posts have basically been the only ones that I've found frustrating in that way;but not all of them,just the ones where you completely evade and never answer the question.You are obviously far from dumb, and so when someone who understands what's being asked of them just acts like they don't it's frustrating.If on the other hand when you didn't want to answer something you would just say :'I understand exactly what you're asking but I have no interest in answering,I take the fifth'or something honest like that I'd never have gotten frustrated.And fwiw certain of your posts may frustrate me,but I don't dislike you personally.Quite the opposite actually,you seem like a very nice and friendly person,like a premie Katie or something.I engage in impassioned debate with people I love all the time and even when I think they're being ridiculous I never dislike them as people.God,if I had to agree with everyone all the time I'd go out of my freakin' head.
Anyway cd,thanks for your post here,this one didn't frustrate me at all,I really liked it actually.
Peace
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 22:17:13 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: CD
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Well, well, well! Full sentences! How nice.
See, Chris, you play the game that so many premies try and it stretches your scruples not to mention your mind. You disdain rationality, yet you continue to talk. That, my friend, is a very difficult combination. Maybe even untenable.
By the way, my friend Kathy asked me if I'd psoted something about bumping into her last week. I told her that indeed I had and even tried to paraphrase what I'd said. She was bemused. Like I say, we had a good time.
So, Chris, even though I am a sleazy, slimy lawyer, I'm not always dishonest. All I can say is, Greta notwithstanding, us lawyers have feelings too, dude. Boo hoo.
Chris, you have a lot to answer for here. You know that you've wasted the time of so many people who have tried to communicate with you. Their frustration, like mine, must have been fairly palbable for a Certified Microsoft Technologist like yourself. Why have you done it?
Is it some punishment you think you can exact on those who don't aver rationality like you do? Are you trying to teach us something? What I see is a very confused hypocrite. You can't stay away from all this dismal 'rationality' but you can't bring yourself to indulge in it either.
Yes, Chris, my law school training has been helfup in my crusade. I credit it, for example, with helping me realize that the time I got into a dialogue with Raja Ji at a program ('Hey, fella, we were told you were divine!'), he was simply trying to throw me off when he asked me if I hadn't been happy in the ashram. Yes, I'm proud of the fact that I knew that that wasn't the question -- that what mattered was how real it had all been. I may be wrong but I think law helped me a bit there.
But suing at my 'liesure and pleasure'? What nonsense! Why, I even misspelled 'leisure', didn't I? Shows how silly you are on that one Chris. (By the way, what IS your proper adress?)
As for any poll confirming or rejecting your... your what? You want to know if people like you? Why don't you ask them if they think you've communicated fairly here? That's the question. I'd be surprised if any but Mili would say yes. And he's the guy who's trying to shut the site down!
Remember how even OP couldn't figure out if you were 'playing the fool', as she put it? Her words, Chris, not mine.
It boils down to this: if you're not into rational discussion, go do something else. Or lurk here. Whatever. Just don't be so rude as to ask questions of others when you won't answer theirs.
Nice talking with you.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 22:22:13 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: Rick
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Oh it gets better all right! As Johnny Carson might have said:'That is some wild wacky stuff'
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 23:01:33 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
>So, Chris, even though I am a sleazy, slimy lawyer, I'm not always dishonest. All I can say is, Greta notwithstanding, us lawyers have feelings too, dude. Boo hoo.
Jim,
Get a hold of yourself.
The fact that you did get your law degree is comendable.
The fact that you play guitar in public performances is even better.
What is your take on some claims that premie songs in minor keys posess some extra power?
>You disdain rationality, yet you continue to talk
This is where misunderstanding takes its toll.
I have no problem with rational logic or the use of thinking to reach conclusions, as a tool to create man-made physical realities or even as a tool to win your case in court.
I do understand that there are limits of logic that can not be overcome.
> I'd be surprised if any but Mili would say yes.
Yes, you did scare away my other allies - g.
Pretty clever Jim.
>Nice talking with you.
Now that one is especially clever - g.
Best wishes,
CD
CD's Email - webmaster@cdickey.com
CD's Infinity and Hobbit Book List
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 01:21:56 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: CD
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
bftb,
You are right I do frustrate people at times.
Sometimes by accident and at other times, but rarely, on purpose.
I may have made a mistake by responding to Jim's saying that I had never really tried anything and I should smarten up.
But I had the impulse to push back in response.
If you think Jim's description of his supremacy at the dinner party is 'bang on', then that is your choice.
It would be interesting to read some responses from a couple other people at the dinner party to get the complete story.
Of course, they might be suprised to find out how Jim has used them in his post.
I used Mr. Lawyer to refer to Jim because Jim seems to exhibit some of the worst of the classic stereotype of the lawyer who sues at his leisure and pleasure.
I do believe that Jim feels empowered by his legal training to pursue his crusade.
Over the past year I have contributed something to this spot though it may not have been up your alley.
I do have my friends as does Jim and yourself.
My fundamental premise is that ultimate answers do not lie in the realm of rational thought.
This is something that I suspected when I was young.
It has been bolstered by my extensive university education, by what I have learned listening to M and by the interaction of my brain, feelings in my life and obvious infinite extent of space and time.
I do work and brush my teeth, but also am amazed by the wonder of the earth existing in the middle of a space with no end and my own finite but remarkable existence in a world with incredible diversity, evil, beauty and suprises.
Understanding can occur in the inner experience when the mental process calms and the life force manifests in its subtle beauty.
It may have no explanation but neither does any form of infinity.
The simplistic example of the taste of the mango ultimately conveys an understanding of what limits our logic and descriptive capabilities face.
A great tree growing from a small seed should be amazing to all of us but we are dulled by the routine and problems of our daily lives and blinded by the ignorance of newbie technological expertise.
I find math, science, computer science, economics, history and other myriad topics of thought very interesting and useful but do not expect them to deliver the ultimate answers that will provide the most fulfilling experience in life.
Yes, of course the intellectual disciplines have practical value.
People should develop their mental skills and manifest their own unique contributions using those skills.
We are an amazing combination of the physical and mental and the infinite subtle source of life, love and deepest feelings.
It is amazing that we are.
My association with M and his teachings for the last 25 years has been extremely positive and worthwhile.
If a poll were taken at this sight I am sure many would put me in the yes category and many would put me in the no group.
This is a natural consequence of the diversity of human understanding and expression.
Regards,
CD
CD:
This is a big battle in the social sciences. You say you've been influenced by a University education, so you are probably aware of the 'interpretive turn' in philosophy that began with Kant, and has now graduated to the radical hermeneutics of Leotard, et al? I find most Americans dismiss that stuff too lightly, and most Europeans give it too much credibility.
One trouble is that 'non-rational' covers a lot of stuff... the subconscious and the 'trans-rational' (super-conscious). The dilemma you are talking about, which is real, is not an answer to anything... it's a problem. Rationality, Weber saw, takes us down a road of 'rationalization' to ultimately leave us in an 'iron cage.' He saw charisma, as a possible way to break the chain, but we have to be able to make some sort of determination that differentiates between a George Washington and an Adolph Hitler. If charismatic leaders gain the license to completely transcend rationality... then how do we decide. My feeling is that GMJ is not a problem, and is not a close call. I'm really worried about the next guy, who is a lot more power-hungry than GMJ and a lot more clever.
Let me put this another way. If GMJ is God, or even good, then we have no way of telling good from evil. This doesn't settle the issue, it just means that the universe is much more problematic than even the pessimists think it is. That's the problem. When virtually all objective evidence suggests that GMJ is not good then even if he is God I either have to act as though he is not, or I have to act as though the fate of the human race rests on a coin toss.
All of this was made much clearer by Karl Popper. It is not productive to make non-falsifiable hypotheses. In the face of all the evidence the hypothesis that GMJ is God, or is good, is not falsifiable (either now or at any time in future). It is therefore not a responsible hypothesis to make.
Here's an example of a responsible hypothesis about spirituality. 'If it were impossible to know God, then it were better not to believe.' The person who made this hypothesis, and conclusion, then lived his like as though he believed. There are only two conclusions: either Paul lived a lie, or he knew God (or could at least realistically hope to know God). We have the testimony of this man's life which 'fails to falsify the hypothesis that God can be known.' He had 'good charisma.'
-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 03:20:22 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: CD
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Hey, nice post CD!
Jim, just thought I'd comment on some of your 'points'. You saud that even though you are a slime, sleazy lawyer, even you were honest sometimes. Were you honest when you said that?
With regard to 'rationality' - Freud and Jung discovered and proved that 'rationality' was just a superficial layer of the mind. We are motivated by base emotions. It really shows in your crusade - you have your mind set, and you are just rationalizing your irrational beliefs (intolerance), although the packaging is designed to appear like logic. That is called 'ratonalization' - a mockery of the real thing.
Here's an example of the kind of 'rationality' you use: a murderer picks a victim, and then takes elaborate, rational steps in planning and executing the murder.
The Nazis made very elaborate and rational preparations to exterminate hundreds of thousands of Jews and other non-German peoples in death camps during WWII. It was supported by a thoroughly 'logical' rationalization, down to the last detail.
Another example is the rational and premeditated policy that is being imposed on Iraq by the US government - starve the whole people for seven years, and then bomb the shit out of them. Pax Americana. All that is going to do is polarize all the Iraqis and other Arabs to cling to Saddam even more. Leaders just fulfil a role that people provide for them, but that's another topic altogether.
Anyway, I figured out that it's just a waste of time talking to you. You are unbelieveably close-minded, petrified and inflexible. You are just feigning a willingness to talk to people who don't share your conjectures and beliefs, but in reality it's a big pain for you, and you wish that those who do not share your opinions should not state them at all.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 10:14:38 (EST)
Poster: Brian
Email:
To: CD
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
You are right I do frustrate people at times. Sometimes by accident and at other times, but rarely, on purpose.
You only frustrate those people who still believe you capable of direct response to specific questions. What you view as 'accident' or 'rarely on purpose' is nothing more than habit. If you practice evasion on a daily basis, you can hardly claim it as being an 'accident' and have those you disappoint fall for your rationalization.
The simplistic example of the taste of the mango ultimately conveys an understanding of what limits our logic and descriptive capabilities face. A great tree growing from a small seed should be amazing to all of us but we are dulled by the routine and problems of our daily lives and blinded by the ignorance of newbie technological expertise.
Yes, life is wonderous. Somehow in the face of that, many people still think and communicate directly with each other. Do their words encompass a great truth? Nope. But they still write books that don't look like the innards of a fortune cookie. You read them, and throw the titles around on this forum to reinforce your learnedness.
Then you evade the question asked - offering instead an overview of Life itself. How wonderously insightful.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 11:18:49 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Everyone
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
My opinion only -
1. Re: Chris - I don't think he evades on purpose (except, as he says, rarely, when he's fooling around). My opinion is that his communication style is different from most other people on the forum. I hope this isn't insulting, Chris. What do you think, anyway? (what does Jan think?) By the way, I don't agree with the argument that Chris is 'wasting people's time' on the forum. That's a matter of opinion.
2. Re: Jim. I wish people would get off Jim's case for being a lawyer. Sure, he is a good arguer, but that isn't necessarily because he is a lawyer. I bet he was persuasive and good at arguments before law school too. I learned how to argue by emulating my father, who was NOT a lawyer, and by going to counseling. Insulting Jim for being a lawyer is just beside the point, in my opinion, since we don't know anything about his law practice. Besides, several other people on here could be lawyers, too, and we wouldn't know it, right? There are even PREMIE lawyers!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 11:51:18 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Brian
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
You are right I do frustrate people at times. Sometimes by accident and at other times, but rarely, on purpose.
You only frustrate those people who still believe you capable of direct response to specific questions. What you view as 'accident' or 'rarely on purpose' is nothing more than habit. If you practice evasion on a daily basis, you can hardly claim it as being an 'accident' and have those you disappoint fall for your rationalization.
The simplistic example of the taste of the mango ultimately conveys an understanding of what limits our logic and descriptive capabilities face. A great tree growing from a small seed should be amazing to all of us but we are dulled by the routine and problems of our daily lives and blinded by the ignorance of newbie technological expertise.
Yes, life is wonderous. Somehow in the face of that, many people still think and communicate directly with each other. Do their words encompass a great truth? Nope. But they still write books that don't look like the innards of a fortune cookie. You read them, and throw the titles around on this forum to reinforce your learnedness.
Then you evade the question asked - offering instead an overview of Life itself. How wonderously insightful.
Yes, it can be frustrating when the answer to your question is not what you expect it to be.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 12:16:36 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Mili
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Yes, it can be frustrating when the answer to your question is not what you expect it to be.
Mili:
Question? Answer? I don't get it... unless you are referring to something like the fundamental existential question. Most of the people on this forum seem open there. The frustration probably comes about as the result of the 'broken record' quality of some of the arguments. I (and probably others) have heard all that stuff ad nauseum. Because the things that are said along these lines can't be falsified does not mean that they are true. Non-falsifiability is not a test of Truth... but it is often a test of clever evasion.
-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 12:28:56 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: bftb
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
I had access to some of the advanced teachings as a result of knowing in inner-circle ex-scientologist. (Someone the movement would prefer were dead.) I recall being accosted for several hours by a half dozen scientologists in a small room in Boston. They accused me of 'brow beating' them. Very objective.
There are clever premies, and clever scientologists. It's a mystery.
-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 13:00:36 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
My opinion only -
1. Re: Chris - I don't think he evades on purpose (except, as he says, rarely, when he's fooling around). My opinion is that his communication style is different from most other people on the forum. I hope this isn't insulting, Chris. What do you think, anyway? (what does Jan think?) By the way, I don't agree with the argument that Chris is 'wasting people's time' on the forum. That's a matter of opinion.
2. Re: Jim. I wish people would get off Jim's case for being a lawyer. Sure, he is a good arguer, but that isn't necessarily because he is a lawyer. I bet he was persuasive and good at arguments before law school too. I learned how to argue by emulating my father, who was NOT a lawyer, and by going to counseling. Insulting Jim for being a lawyer is just beside the point, in my opinion, since we don't know anything about his law practice. Besides, several other people on here could be lawyers, too, and we wouldn't know it, right? There are even PREMIE lawyers!
Katie, The problem with Jim is not that he is a lawyer, or good at arguing. It's that he brings up irrelevant points to argue.
Also, he is not playing fair. He has no qulams about insulting people, yet he is very touchy when he gets insulted back. His favorite trick is to pronounce anyone who doesn't agree with him stupid. Then he gets a reaction to that, and his ego thrives on that. Provoke and then play the innocent victim, its just the same idiotic little game he plays all the time. It can really become monotonous after a while.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 14:16:00 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
My opinion only -
1. Re: Chris - I don't think he evades on purpose (except, as he says, rarely,
when he's fooling around). My opinion is that his communication style is
different from most other people on the forum. I hope this isn't insulting,
Chris. What do you think, anyway? (what does Jan think?) By the way, I don't
agree with the argument that Chris is 'wasting people's time' on the forum.
That's a matter of opinion.
2. Re: Jim. I wish people would get off Jim's case for being a lawyer. Sure,
he is a good arguer, but that isn't necessarily because he is a lawyer.
I bet he was persuasive and good at arguments before law school too.
I learned how to argue by emulating my father, who was NOT a lawyer, and
by going to counseling. Insulting Jim for being a lawyer is just beside
the point, in my opinion, since we don't know anything about his law practice.
Besides, several other people on here could be lawyers, too, and we wouldn't
know it, right? There are even PREMIE lawyers!
Katie, The problem with Jim is not that he is a lawyer, or good
at arguing. It's that he brings up irrelevant points to argue.
Also, he is not playing fair. He has no qulams about insulting people, yet
he is very touchy when he gets insulted back. His favorite trick is to
pronounce anyone who doesn't agree with him stupid. Then he gets a reaction
to that, and his ego thrives on that. Provoke and then play the innocent
victim, its just the same idiotic little game he plays all the time. It can
really become monotonous after a while.
Dear Mili - you didn't really answer my question, but I'm going
to assume that you don't have any problem with Jim being a lawyer from now
forward. IMHO, it's distracting and silly when anyone on this site
insults people because of their occupation, sex, religion, marital status,
national origin, or whatever. (This is not addressed to you directly, Mili.
You just happened to be the one who answered my question.)
As to the way Jim argues, I don't know what to say. I have had some good
arguments with him both on the site and via e-mail, but he's a lot nicer
to me than he is to some other people because I am an ex-premie and because
we (sort of) know each other. Actually, I don't care if people want to argue
with Jim and vice versa, it's just that all the lawyer stuff was starting
to get on my nerves.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 14:20:28 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Sorry! (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Sorry everyone, I did not put in the right code to end the bold face type! The only bold word should have been 'anyone'.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 16:05:02 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
bftb,
You are right I do frustrate people at times.
Sometimes by accident and at other times, but rarely, on purpose.
I may have made a mistake by responding to Jim's saying that I had never really tried anything and I should smarten up.
But I had the impulse to push back in response.
If you think Jim's description of his supremacy at the dinner party is 'bang on', then that is your choice.
It would be interesting to read some responses from a couple other people at the dinner party to get the complete story.
Of course, they might be suprised to find out how Jim has used them in his post.
I used Mr. Lawyer to refer to Jim because Jim seems to exhibit some of the worst of the classic stereotype of the lawyer who sues at his leisure and pleasure.
I do believe that Jim feels empowered by his legal training to pursue his crusade.
Over the past year I have contributed something to this spot though it may not have been up your alley.
I do have my friends as does Jim and yourself.
My fundamental premise is that ultimate answers do not lie in the realm of rational thought.
This is something that I suspected when I was young.
It has been bolstered by my extensive university education, by what I have learned listening to M and by the interaction of my brain, feelings in my life and obvious infinite extent of space and time.
I do work and brush my teeth, but also am amazed by the wonder of the earth existing in the middle of a space with no end and my own finite but remarkable existence in a world with incredible diversity, evil, beauty and suprises.
Understanding can occur in the inner experience when the mental process calms and the life force manifests in its subtle beauty.
It may have no explanation but neither does any form of infinity.
The simplistic example of the taste of the mango ultimately conveys an understanding of what limits our logic and descriptive capabilities face.
A great tree growing from a small seed should be amazing to all of us but we are dulled by the routine and problems of our daily lives and blinded by the ignorance of newbie technological expertise.
I find math, science, computer science, economics, history and other myriad topics of thought very interesting and useful but do not expect them to deliver the ultimate answers that will provide the most fulfilling experience in life.
Yes, of course the intellectual disciplines have practical value.
People should develop their mental skills and manifest their own unique contributions using those skills.
We are an amazing combination of the physical and mental and the infinite subtle source of life, love and deepest feelings.
It is amazing that we are.
My association with M and his teachings for the last 25 years has been extremely positive and worthwhile.
If a poll were taken at this sight I am sure many would put me in the yes category and many would put me in the no group.
This is a natural consequence of the diversity of human understanding and expression.
Regards,
CD
CD:
This is a big battle in the social sciences. You say you've been influenced by a University education, so you are probably aware of the 'interpretive turn' in philosophy that began with Kant, and has now graduated to the radical hermeneutics of Leotard, et al? I find most Americans dismiss that stuff too lightly, and most Europeans give it too much credibility.
One trouble is that 'non-rational' covers a lot of stuff... the subconscious and the 'trans-rational' (super-conscious). The dilemma you are talking about, which is real, is not an answer to anything... it's a problem. Rationality, Weber saw, takes us down a road of 'rationalization' to ultimately leave us in an 'iron cage.' He saw charisma, as a possible way to break the chain, but we have to be able to make some sort of determination that differentiates between a George Washington and an Adolph Hitler. If charismatic leaders gain the license to completely transcend rationality... then how do we decide. My feeling is that GMJ is not a problem, and is not a close call. I'm really worried about the next guy, who is a lot more power-hungry than GMJ and a lot more clever.
Let me put this another way. If GMJ is God, or even good, then we have no way of telling good from evil. This doesn't settle the issue, it just means that the universe is much more problematic than even the pessimists think it is. That's the problem. When virtually all objective evidence suggests that GMJ is not good then even if he is God I either have to act as though he is not, or I have to act as though the fate of the human race rests on a coin toss.
All of this was made much clearer by Karl Popper. It is not productive to make non-falsifiable hypotheses. In the face of all the evidence the hypothesis that GMJ is God, or is good, is not falsifiable (either now or at any time in future). It is therefore not a responsible hypothesis to make.
Here's an example of a responsible hypothesis about spirituality. 'If it were impossible to know God, then it were better not to believe.' The person who made this hypothesis, and conclusion, then lived his like as though he believed. There are only two conclusions: either Paul lived a lie, or he knew God (or could at least realistically hope to know God). We have the testimony of this man's life which 'fails to falsify the hypothesis that God can be known.' He had 'good charisma.'
-Scott
I don't waste much time thinking 'is GMJ God?'. GMJ is just GMJ. I tend to think of an impersonal God, like a fountain of Light and divine Bliss that is the source of Creation.
Also, I am aware that any 'God' that I can imagine is just my concoction, not the real God, so I'd rather be open to an undefined 'Nothing, the Great Void, Novelty' than constrain God by my imagination.
In my book Knowledge is 'good' - it is an everpresent source of clarity and simplicity in a complicated world. It is home base. GMJ talks about the Knowledge, and I can see that he is being very down to earth and realistic about it. So, I guess, for me, by association, GMJ is also good. Like I said many times, I don't think his private life is relevant. I don't look to him to teach me about flying airplanes, or having kids, or whatever else it is he does when he is not giving satsang.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 21:49:26 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
If you ever see this (can anything be done about the 50 post cutoff?):
Why do you think Chris doesn't evade on purpose? Like when he didn't answer your question about whether or not he evades on purpose? Why do you think that wasn't on purpose? And how about now? What if he doesn't answer your latest question about that? Will that not be on purpose? Are we talking wishful thinking, Katie?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 23:22:53 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@Mail.trib.net
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
If you ever see this (can anything be done about the 50 post cutoff?):
Why do you think Chris doesn't evade on purpose? Like when he didn't answer your question about whether or not he evades on purpose? Why do you think that wasn't on purpose? And how about now? What if he doesn't answer your latest question about that? Will that not be on purpose? Are we talking wishful thinking, Katie?
Dear Jim - to bypass the 50-post cutoff, use the following URL as your bookmark. It will load the whole forum. I usually use it so I can see newer posts farther down. The problem lately has been that the forum gets so big so fast that it takes forever to load after about a week.
I am not sure if anything can be done about the 50 post cutoff - with Paradise, I mean. Shri Brian, master of the web, is looking for other options.
Here's the URL:
http://www.paradise-serve.com/powerforum/pwrforum.exe?who=anything&showall=ok
Regarding Chris - the reason I think he's not being deliberately evasive is because 1) he said that he isn't deliberately evasive , except for every once in a while, and 2) I know some other people who communicate sort of like Chris does and they aren't deliberately evasive either. That's just how they are, in my opinion.
Why does it bother you so much, anyway? Seriously (and I am asking nicely).
Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 11:35:43 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katy,
Thanks for the tip.
As for:
>Regarding Chris - the reason I think he's not being deliberately evasive is because 1) he said that he isn't deliberately evasive , except for every once in a while, and 2) I know some other people who communicate sort of like Chris does and they aren't deliberately evasive either. That's just how they are, in my opinion.
>Why does it bother you so much, anyway? Seriously (and I am asking nicely).
You're kidding, right? Anyway, I guess I'm just a caring kind of guy.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 14:54:56 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Mili
Subject: Re: premie dinner party
Message:
Mili:
This is getting pretty far down on the list, so you may not get back to it. I agree with most of what you say. In my experience Knowledge is 'good,' though I am open to the possibility that it's a 'trick.' As for 'I don't think his private life is relevant. ' That sounds very suspicious. Is Paul's private life relevant to the test of his hypothesis and conclusion? You bet! It is everything. Without that evidence his statement means absolutely nothing.
-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 18:31:31 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
If you ever see this (can anything be done about the 50 post cutoff?):
Why do you think Chris doesn't evade on purpose? Like when he didn't answer your question about whether or not he evades on purpose? Why do you think that wasn't on purpose? And how about now? What if he doesn't answer your latest question about that? Will that not be on purpose? Are we talking wishful thinking, Katie?
Katie and Jim:
I used to have a girlfriend who had a certain pattern with men, which I excused based upon the notion that it wasn't 'on purpose.' A firend of mine pointed out that it probably wasn't 'on purpose.' It was probably more like tying her shoes. She just didn't have to think about it.
-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 19:00:08 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Exactment, mon frere!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 09:23:03 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Scott and Jim
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
You guys will probably never see this down here, but here goes.
Yeah, but why does someone do something like evasion? There's usually a reason for it. For example, I am a hesitant speaker, I have trouble speaking for more than 60 seconds at a time, let sentences go unfinished, tend to try and tell a story as fast as I can (leading to confusion on the part of the listener). Why? Cause people in my family always interrupted me before I was finished speaking, leading me to believe I was boring them to death. Is this behavior deliberate on my part? Or not? (By the way, the way I talk really bothers some people, although fortunately not all.)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 10:09:48 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
Okay if I join in? Probably no one can answer this, but at some point one has to wonder if someone evading doesn't have the intention to do so. You point out that you were interrupted in your family and tend to hurry your communication. Yet you're delightfully forthcoming and frank. The woman I live with does the opposite; she will talk at length for the same reason you talk briefly but won't broach a delicate subject because of other fears. If I push, she'll eventually 'fess up to what she really thinks, and she resents being pushed, but won't offer what she thinks otherwise. Sometimes I think premies are pretty brave for posting on this site at all. If I was still a premie, I'd never go near this place. Maharaji always gave that analogy about getting drowned by those you're trying to save. Not to mention, it's downright confronting in this environment. Also, I think premies inherently have to be evasive because the reality demands it. If they weren't evasive, they'd have to leave maharaji.
People have to be able to find culpability at some point. Otherwise, no one's responsible for anything. It's really hard to know when someone's truly culpable; I think people usually guess or form an opinion based on how they feel. I'm usually quick to find someone culpable. You seem like you're slow to find people culpable. It may be connected to having a tendency to blame yourself versus blaming otheres. Pretty complicated, but at some point you have to be able to say, 'You're a rotten louse.' Of course, you can always take it back later if you were wrong.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 11:18:22 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
Okay if I join in? Probably no one can answer this, but at some point one has to wonder if someone evading doesn't have the intention to do so. You point out that you were interrupted in your family and tend to hurry your communication. Yet you're delightfully forthcoming and frank. The woman I live with does the opposite; she will talk at length for the same reason you talk briefly but won't broach a delicate subject because of other fears. If I push, she'll eventually 'fess up to what she really thinks, and she resents being pushed, but won't offer what she thinks otherwise. Sometimes I think premies are pretty brave for posting on this site at all. If I was still a premie, I'd never go near this place. Maharaji always gave that analogy about getting drowned by those you're trying to save. Not to mention, it's downright confronting in this environment. Also, I think premies inherently have to be evasive because the reality demands it. If they weren't evasive, they'd have to leave maharaji.
People have to be able to find culpability at some point. Otherwise, no one's responsible for anything. It's really hard to know when someone's truly culpable; I think people usually guess or form an opinion based on how they feel. I'm usually quick to find someone culpable. You seem like you're slow to find people culpable. It may be connected to having a tendency to blame yourself versus blaming otheres. Pretty complicated, but at some point you have to be able to say, 'You're a rotten louse.' Of course, you can always take it back later if you were wrong.
Hi Rick - of course it's OK if you join in. Jim and I have beat this subject to death both on and off the net, have agreed to disagree, and keep arguing about it. I guess the question if whether Chris is deliberately evasive or not. Or as you put if, does he have the intention to be evasive? Now much further up on this thread, Chris said that he was evasive at times, but almost always not deliberately. To me this is admitting that he is culpable ('responsible for wrong or error'.) I believe him, and think that if he intends to be evasive, it's unconcious, or programming.
EXCEPT for one big thing. Maharaji/PAM has said that they don't want premies talking about knowledge on the internet. My guess is that Chris still wants to post on here, but is inhibited by that (just like I'm inhibited for speaking for more than five minutes for fear that I'm boring someone). For example, he wouldn't give VP the Visions phone number, which was very frustrating to VP. I feel like he did this in an effort to obey M/PAM's agya. (Chris, I am interpreting your actions here so please speak up if I am wrong. I don't want to speak for you.)
Also, some people have implied that Chris shouldn't be posting on here if he is going to be evasive. I don't agree with this at all. Brian's basic rules for posting say that violent threats and assuming other people's identities are strongly discouraged. Chris doesn't do either of these things. Plus some of his posts are interesting to me.
I agree that people have to be able to find culpability, and also that people have to assume culpability. You are right that I tend to be slow to find (most) people culpable. But I do believe that everyone is responsible for their own actions, wrongs, or errors. The reason I tend to be slow to find culpability is that I tend to believe things are my fault, while other people tend to believe that things are other's fault (Maharaji is a prime example. Do you think he believes that he is responsible for ANY error or wrong?) By the way, Rick, although you say you are quick to find culpability, you do seem to take the correct amount of responsiblity for your errors and wrongs.
About evasion (and not Chris in particular): I believe that many people are brought up in such a way that they won't discuss their feelings (because they were told that they shouldn't have negative feelings), won't say what they think (because it's 'negative' or bad), won't ask for what they want (because it's 'selfish') and won't say no (because it's not OK). Women in particular are taught these things, and are taught - by example - to get what they want by indirectness and manipulation, but men can have many of these behaviors too. My husband has a hard time saying what he wants in personal relationships, for example, although he doesn't have the same problem at work.
I appreciate your saying that I am 'frank and forthcoming' (thanks), but I had to work really hard to get that way (years of therapy and so forth). I used to have a really hard time even knowing what I wanted and what I thought because I was so conditioned to think and feel the way I 'should'. I was afraid that if I said what I really wanted or felt or thought, I'd be rejected as a selfish and bad person. So I can relate to what you said about the woman you live with. But at the same time, I don't think people that are evasive can get away with saying 'that's just how I am' if their evasiveness bothers other people. I don't think that's what Chris was trying to say (but I could be wrong).
Anyway, I don't have the impulse to call anyone on here a rotten louse (yet). Did you have someone particular in mind?
Regards,
Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 12:06:02 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
Clearly maharaji doesn't take responsibility for causing any pain as a result of guruing. It's hard to imagine what it's like inside his head; probably some very strange notions that don't include being wrong or feeling guilty. I agree that we're taught not to say what we feel (or emote), express negative thoughts, or ask for what we want, expecially women. Truth be told, I think Mili is a rotten louse. I made up my mind when I read his attempt to shut down alt.cult.maharaji For me, that was over the line into 'evil-land'. A straight-up apology would probably rectify my feelings, though.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 14:28:34 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
Your point is that Chris is only evasive to the extent he says he is. But when you and others now have asked him to explain himself -- he's evasive. YET, you give him the benefit of the doubt. Why?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 14:30:05 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie, Rick, et al:
We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel down here aren't we?
If I go to tie my shoe it's the whole act that's intentional. Once I start, everything else is automatic. The tying of knots. The pattern I was talking about, with my female friend, was clearly created by a familial abuse pattern, but she also got a 'hit' from it. She got some enjoyment out of the whole knot-tying process, especially the end. (This isn't as kinky as it sounds.) The point, I guess, is that if she had been 'called out' for it more often it would have been less of a hit, and she might have sought other patterns.
Have you ever seen that scene in the movie Backdraft where the guy describes the process of fire as a sort of living thing? A 'beast?' There's a sort in inhuman inevitability to some of these patterns, once you catch their drift. In my own case I have to remain vigilant, so that I avoid at least some of my patterns. Some people don't give a shit.
-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 15:08:20 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
Your point is that Chris is only evasive to the extent he says he is. But when you and others now have asked him to explain himself -- he's evasive. YET, you give him the benefit of the doubt. Why?
Jim, I am not sure that I understand your question. Give him the benefit of the doubt for what? Do you mean that I am giving him the benefit of the doubt because I beleive him when he says he's not being evasive on purpose? The reason I do that is because I believe that he honestly is trying to communicate with people on the site. You don't believe this, right? So can we agree to disagree? (There is obviously no way we can resolve this question between the two or four of us that are here!)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 15:16:39 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
Clearly maharaji doesn't take responsibility for causing any pain as a result of guruing. It's hard to imagine what it's like inside his head; probably some very strange notions that don't include being wrong or feeling guilty. I agree that we're taught not to say what we feel (or emote), express negative thoughts, or ask for what we want, expecially women. Truth be told, I think Mili is a rotten louse. I made up my mind when I read his attempt to shut down alt.cult.maharaji For me, that was over the line into 'evil-land'. A straight-up apology would probably rectify my feelings, though.
Dear Rick,
My opinion on Mili is that he's fighting a war against something, and the ex-premies are the nearest approximation. He has often in the past compared us to Nazis, white supremacists, fundamentalist Christians, the KKK, and so forth, which are such exaggerations that it makes me wonder if he is really mad at us, or if we are just the symbol for something else. I do think it was really rotten that he tried to shut down the newsgroup, but I also thought it was strange and a little silly (I mean: like WHY?).
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 15:24:18 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
I understand what you mean about unconscious patterns (like whatever your ex did). People do weird and even psychopathic things because of patterns like that. I think you have to draw the line when they start harming other people or animals or themselves.
I'm not sure that Chris's evasive behavior is really hurting anyone whether it's conscious or unconscious. He has been 'called out' for it before on the forum, many times, by the way. But if it bothers you, I think it's good that you say so, so that he can know that it's not just a few people noticing it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 17:19:24 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
Yes, I mean 'giving him the benefit of the doubt' by accepting his explanation of when he does and doesn't mean to be evasive. Yes, I can 'agree to disagree' but I don't find that very satisfying. Katie, look at what you're saying. When asked why you give him the benefit of the doubt (i.e. believe him) you say:
'The reason I do that is because I believe that he honestly is trying to communicate with people on the site.'
So all you're saying is you believe him because you believe him! AND, you don't want to talk about it (although, I have to say, I never dragged you in this time. You jumped.).
Frankly, I'd have thought Chris had exhausted any such 'benefit of the doubt' with you when he wouldn't answer your very simple question.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 17:44:16 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
Yes, I mean 'giving him the benefit of the doubt' by accepting his explanation of when he does and doesn't mean to be evasive. Yes, I can 'agree to disagree' but I don't find that very satisfying. Katie, look at what you're saying. When asked why you give him the benefit of the doubt (i.e. believe him) you say:
'The reason I do that is because I believe that he honestly is trying to communicate with people on the site.'
So all you're saying is you believe him because you believe him! AND, you don't want to talk about it (although, I have to say, I never dragged you in this time. You jumped.).
Frankly, I'd have thought Chris had exhausted any such 'benefit of the doubt' with you when he wouldn't answer your very simple question.
Jim -
I agree that my argument sucks (or it's a circular argument or whatever). And I'm sorry it's not very satisfying to you. But, I am tired of arguing about whether Chris is deliberately or not deliberately evasive, even though, as you say, I brought it on myself by being too impulsive. The reason I don't want to talk about it anymore is that I feel like I am out on a limb already - I can't really say any more about Chris without either having Chris's participation or being able to read his mind. In fact, I feel like Chris should take over the argument at this point, although I can see why he wouldn't want to!
Katie
P.S. Maybe you can get some satisfaction by arguing with 'a premie' or 'Miss Y' for a while!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 17:47:09 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Scott,
Good point. Really, Chris' intent is a bit of a red herring. He's evasive and can and should stop being that way. Period. One could speculate that maybe he suffers from some kind of mental disorder. There's no evidence of that, just the sign of someone trying to defend an untenable position. Here, I give my own common sense the 'benefit of the doubt.'
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 17:56:26 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
Why in the world would I want to argue with two anonymous idiots when I have you?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 17:56:46 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
Why in the world would I want to argue with two anonymous idiots when I have you?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 18:02:44 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Chris and Jim (Re: premie dinner party)
Message:
Katie,
Why in the world would I want to argue with two anonymous idiots when I have you?
You got me. Maybe we can get into a real good argument later about something else.
Katie
P.S. Send me an e-mail sometime when you get a chance.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 14:21:10 (EST)
Poster: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: Paradise is the pits
Message:
The latest archive is online now. Paradise managed to eat about 10 posts that were at the bottom of the index. This happened last time, but I had made an archive earlier in the week to test some software. I'll make one in mid-week again to prevent any further loss. You people are so darn chatty here that I have to archive once a week lately.
All of the Forum II archives are currently available to browse online, for anyone having a good book to read while they load. The 'parts' run between 140K and 532K. That's why I originally had it set up to download ZIP files to read offline. You can still do that, as the ZIP files are available, and they include all parts of an archive.
I will probably have to restrict online reading to the most recent archive(s) sometime in the near future. Disk space above 50 MEG costs extra, and these puppies eat it up. For these 5 archives as they are, it's running about 8 MEG. So you see that zipping is the only way that archives can remain available somewhere down the road (couple of months?).
Evantually I hope to find a better alternative to Paradise. I'm looking into it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 14:35:45 (EST)
Poster: Brian
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Re: Paradise is the pits
Message:
BTW, I haven't heard anything about the page format for the Forum II archives. People who have waded through Forum I archives please let me know if you think it would be worth my time to reformat those archives the same as Forum II.
Yes? No? What-was-the-question?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 15:56:52 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: Brian
Subject: Re: Paradise is the pits
Message:
BTW, I haven't heard anything about the page format for the Forum II archives. People who have waded through Forum I archives please let me know if you think it would be worth my time to reformat those archives the same as Forum II.
Yes? No? What-was-the-question?
Brian, I would love to answer your question but I tested the 'view' links on about half of the new forum archives and none of them work. I know this will just make your day... Anyway, I hated the format of the Archived Forums I, so I think whatever you can come up with will have to be better. I liked the look and feel of the ZIP files I downloaded a lot.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 16:56:25 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: Katie/Brian
Subject: Trouble, too (Re: Paradise is the pits)
Message:
BTW, I haven't heard anything about the page format for the Forum II archives. People who have waded through Forum I archives please let me know if you think it would be worth my time to reformat those archives the same as Forum II.
Yes? No? What-was-the-question?
Brian, I would love to answer your question but I tested the 'view' links on about half of the new forum archives and none of them work. I know this will just make your day... Anyway, I hated the format of the Archived Forums I, so I think whatever you can come up with will have to be better. I liked the look and feel of the ZIP files I downloaded a lot.
Brian, I hate to tell you that I had the same problem that Katie did. I appreciate you letting us view on-line and thank you again for all of the time and work that you have put and are putting into this. Sincerely, VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 17:58:37 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: VP
Subject: Re: Trouble, too (Re: Paradise is the pits)
Message:
BTW, I haven't heard anything about the page format for the Forum II archives. People who have waded through Forum I archives please let me know if you think it would be worth my time to reformat those archives the same as Forum II.
Yes? No? What-was-the-question?
Brian, I would love to answer your question but I tested the 'view' links on about half of the new forum archives and none of them work. I know this will just make your day... Anyway, I hated the format of the Archived Forums I, so I think whatever you can come up with will have to be better. I liked the look and feel of the ZIP files I downloaded a lot.
Brian, I hate to tell you that I had the same problem that Katie did. I appreciate you letting us view on-line and thank you again for all of the time and work that you have put and are putting into this. Sincerely, VP
Brian:
I second the thanks and kudos. Amazing, really.
-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 15:19:41 (EST)
Poster: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: Re: Paradise is the pits
Message:
Okay, they work now.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 21:06:34 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: Brian
Subject: Thanks to Brian (Re: Paradise is the pits)
Message:
Okay, they work now.
Thank you, Brian. (How do you stand it? No wonder webmasters burn out after 6 months max.)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 10:46:31 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: A not-so-little trick
Message:
Dear Forum:
I apologize again for one of these long, drawn-out posts. I'd like your feedback as to whether you think this stuff is useful. If not I'll try to confine myself to more brief comments.
I came across this discussion of the Guru in Max Weber's The Sociology of Religion (Beacon Press, 1963, 1991: p. 54) translated and compiled from Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (J.C.B. Mohr, 1922). I present it here because it demonstrates that the type of thing Maharaji is doing derives from an ancient Indian tradition, and that he has attempted to adapt that tradition to a western form of charismatic leadership without subjecting himself the demands and obligations imposed upon either a western or an eastern prophet or teacher. He therefore does not actually fulfill the demands of either tradition. Essentially, the type of mission involved in the 'Reas Satsang' from which Maharaji traces his lineage (only part of which he acknowledges) is what Weber calls a 'mystagogue' tradition. I quote:
'Very frequently dynasties of mystagogues developed on the basis of a sacramental charisma which was regarded as hereditary. These dynasties maintained their prestige for centuries, investing their disciples with great authority and thus developing a kind of hierarchical position. This was especially true in India, where the title of guru was also used to designate distributors of salvation and their plenipotentiaries..... Ethical doctrine was lacking in the mystagogue, who distributed magical salvation, or at least doctrine played only a very subordinate role in his work. Instead, his primary gift was hereditarily transmitted magical art. Moreover, he normally made a living from his art, for which there was a great demand. Consequently we must exclude him too from the conception of prophet, even though he sometimes revealed new ways of salvation.'
Maharaji, therefore, deviates from the tradition of prophecy in the fact that he earns a living (and then some) from what he does. However, even if we ignore this, he deviates in other perhaps more important ways. Weber goes on to say that the form of prophecy that can evolve out of the Indian tradition is what he calls 'exemplary,' rather than 'ethical.' The primary reason for this is the absence, in India, of a personal, transcendental, and ethical god, which is a near-eastern concept. The ethical prophet presents himself as one who has received his commission from god, and 'demands obedience as an ethical duty.' The exemplary prophet, on the other hand, 'directs his demands for obedience to the self-interest of those who crave salvation, recommending to them the same path as he himself has traversed.
The only role Maharaji clearly fulfills is that of the mystagogue, and therefor what he transmits is a magical art that has a supposed connection with salvation (and legitimated by the lineage that he mostly denies). He does not fulfill any of the requirements or obligations of a prophet (either ethical or exemplary), though he often presents himself as one. This is very important, because one of the well-worn excuses for M's behavior is that it is an 'Indian' tradition, and that we should not expect him to conform to a Western standard of conduct. The point here is that he doesn't even conform to an Eastern standard of conduct, which he justifies on the basis that he is fulfilling a Westernized role. He and his followers can make their claims about his mission only if you are compelled to look at one set of standards at a time, and base your judgements about his legitimacy on the set of standards about which you are ignorant. I have to say that this trick is common to academia as well.
-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 12:28:04 (EST)
Poster: Selena
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: A not-so-little trick
Message:
Scott,
Thanks for the post. I find these useful. Anything that can shed light on M, that can dispel the mystery, is good for me.
What did you mean that you find this common in academia as well?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 14:15:28 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Selena
Subject: Re: A not-so-little trick
Message:
Scott,
Thanks for the post. I find these useful. Anything that can shed light on M, that can dispel the mystery, is good for me.
What did you mean that you find this common in academia as well?
Selena:
In academia it is sometimes a crossdisciplinary issue. An assertion is legitimated in one discipline on the basis that it is accepted in another. In that case it is usually not severly scrutinized in either. Commonly happens when an assertion is made in a sociology journal on the basis of economic principles, or in an economic journal on the basis of sociological principles. One set of readers may be unfamiliar with the standards of the other, so the assertion sneaks through.
-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 15:09:59 (EST)
Poster: oiluesrdtgyuhi
Email: **
To: Scott T.
Subject: A not-so-little trick (Re: A not-so-little trick)
Message:
Good Post scott.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 17:28:57 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: A not-so-little trick
Message:
Scott:
Don't have the time for much of a response due to other things happening in my life, but I wanted to let you know, that I do appreciate reading your posts. I love serious objective analysis.
John
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 17:37:23 (EST)
Poster: X
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: A not-so-little trick
Message:
You seem adept at analysis.
So what does a mango taste like?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 17:54:17 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: X
Subject: Re: A not-so-little trick
Message:
You seem adept at analysis.
So what does a mango taste like?
X:
According to Maharaji it tastes like turpentine... sort of. In order to try it out it's probably enough to know that it's a fruit. If I was unfamiliar, and someone told me about a fruit that sort of tasted like turpentine, I'd be curious... and half apprehensive that the guy who told me might be about to drop dead.
-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 12:47:19 (EST)
Poster: An Ex with an Axe to grind
Email:
To: Mr. X
Subject: A Mango's Taste (Re: A not-so-little trick)
Message:
Dear Mr. X,
- You wrote:
You seem adept at analysis.
So what does a mango taste like?
- Here is a bit of what a mango tastes like:
1.) It is sweet.
2.) It is refreshing.
3.) It is nourishing.
4.) It has no unfortunate or hidden afteraffects.
- Here is what Knowledge is like:
1.) It often seems to fulfill one's social needs at first.
2.) It often seems to put one's inner turmoils to rest at first.
3.) It may seem to provide a source of optimism in an otherwise dismal situation at first.
4.) Eventually all of the above seem to fade and repeated practice only seem to invoke vague memories of the initial promises.
Sincerely,
An Ex with an Axe to grind
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 13:15:45 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: An Ex with an Axe to grind
Subject: Re: A Mango's Taste (Re: A not-so-little trick)
Message:
Dear Mr. X,
- You wrote:
You seem adept at analysis.
So what does a mango taste like?
- Here is a bit of what a mango tastes like:
1.) It is sweet.
2.) It is refreshing.
3.) It is nourishing.
4.) It has no unfortunate or hidden afteraffects.
- Here is what Knowledge is like:
1.) It often seems to fulfill one's social needs at first.
2.) It often seems to put one's inner turmoils to rest at first.
3.) It may seem to provide a source of optimism in an otherwise dismal situation at first.
4.) Eventually all of the above seem to fade and repeated practice only seem to invoke vague memories of the initial promises.
Sincerely,
An Ex with an Axe to grind
Well put. The argument that descriptions are inadequate and that you must experience something first-hand is shortsighted. Knowledge is presented as perfection but the instructions on how to get there are vague and misleading. A premie can't blame perfection for not being perfect so she/he has to blame themself for not experiencing it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 13:31:09 (EST)
Poster: Katie off topic
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: X (CD)
Subject: Re: A not-so-little trick
Message:
You seem adept at analysis.
So what does a mango taste like?
CD - what is this 'X' stuff, anyway? Chris X? You have a very distinctive writing style.
I cannot believe that Maharaji said that mangos taste like turpentine, by the way. He must have had some bad mangoes. They do have a slight taste of pine (which is where he got the turpentine from), but mostly taste like peach and pineapple mixed together. The pine taste makes them really good, IMHO.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 14:36:26 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: Katie off topic
Subject: Re: A not-so-little trick
Message:
Actually, the mango story that M used to tell, which of course he must have learned from his Pa, is about as deep and interesting as M gets.
It is a cute story and my children have enjoyed it when I have told it to them.
A basic fact that I have learned by living it and trying it is that devotion to someone who does not recognize my existence is NOTfulfilling.
Another fact I have learned is that meditation on my breath is a useful technique but it is hardly the ultimate experience, and it is also not that fulfilling.
But, to look on the bright side,and to end on a 'positive' note, I do love mangos and hearing that story from M motivated me to find out what they taste like.
So thank you M for introducing me to mangos!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 14:52:33 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Katie off topic
Subject: Re: A not-so-little trick
Message:
Is that really you, Chris, hiding at last?
How pathetic.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 06:19:35 (EST)
Poster: ex-mug
Email:
To: An Ex with an Axe to grind
Subject: Re: A Mango's Taste (Re: A not-so-little trick)
Message:
Dear Mr. X,
- You wrote:
You seem adept at analysis.
So what does a mango taste like?
- Here is a bit of what a mango tastes like:
1.) It is sweet.
2.) It is refreshing.
3.) It is nourishing.
4.) It has no unfortunate or hidden afteraffects.
- Here is what Knowledge is like:
1.) It often seems to fulfill one's social needs at first.
2.) It often seems to put one's inner turmoils to rest at first.
3.) It may seem to provide a source of optimism in an otherwise dismal situation at first.
4.) Eventually all of the above seem to fade and repeated practice only seem to invoke vague memories of the initial promises.
Sincerely,
An Ex with an Axe to grind
Remember the claim (in the 70's)that GM's 'Knowledge' is
'The knowledge of all knowledges'?
Does the reflection of this 'super-knowledge'
have to take the form of;a) the crass soap-op. music
of 'One Foundation?
b) the mind-numbingly boring speeches of GM
(I say GM because I don't buy this revisionist nonsense
aka Maharaji the 'humanitarian'- I'll always remember
his 'Lord of the Universe' claim of the early days)
c) the clinical/corporate atmosphere of the current
Elan Vital etc...
Where is the magic, wonder, awe of the so-called
'Knowledge of all Knowledges'?
The lowest commom denominator by all accounts.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 06:41:01 (EST)
Poster: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: Forum Reset
Message:
Okay, the forum's reset, but ex-premie.org seems to be down right now so the archives may not be available until I can upload them after work tonight.
Also, since the New Thread form is located on the main site, you can't use the new form to start a thread. Use the old one for now until the site comes back up. You may want to bookmark this for those times when ex-premie.org is down. I should add it to the forum index page, huh?...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 23:54:28 (EST)
Poster: david
Email: dkoral@usnetway.com
To: Brian
Subject: Re: Forum Reset
Message:
its great to be here. iwas a practicing premie in the days of phillys divine light dancers. and ayes ex is the word forme the experience was just what it was ... life goes on and its what you make it,, i was very surprised to find this ex group out here . but my truth is i thank you all and maybe it was supposed to be there for us be well and somehow were all still first cousins
Back To Index -:- Top of Index