I Remember the Actual Commercial Being:
'Is it 'Live' or is it 'Memorex?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Most who grew up in the US remember the old TV and radio
> commercials "Is it real, or is it Memorex?" The idea being
> presented in those commercials was that many people can't
> tell the difference between a live performance and one
> that was recorded on Memorex-brand tape.
>
> I think that the ad agency that thought this up was bril-
> liant, because there are many people who *can't* tell the
> difference. Furthermore, they would argue that they, having
> only heard the recorded versions of, say, Segovia's work,
> or Keith Jarret's, or Glenn Gould's "know" as much about
> the work and the artist as someone who actually saw them
> perform. With Jarrett, for example, who is famous for...
> uh..."acting out" his musical performances by rocking and
> swaying back and forth on the piano stool, and (like Glenn
> Gould) uncontrollably humming along with his own music,
> someone who knew only the recordings could have gained a
> "feeling" about the music and the artist that was erroneous.
> Glenn Gould's recording company found ways to *edit out*
> his humming and moaning, so the Memorex set would not even
> be aware that he brought that kind of passion to his music.
>
> Now think spiritual teachers.
>
> There are some on this forum -- and there is no need to name
> them because you all know who they are -- who seem to feel
> that having only dealt with the Memorex version of Maharishi,
> they "know" the essence of "What he taught," and similarly
> "know" things about him as an individual or about his state
> of consciousness. I think this stance is...uh...self-serving
> bullshit served up by those who are anxious to hide the fact
> that they were willing to settle for the expurgated version
> of the teacher they claim to "know" things about.
>
> You on this forum who met Maharishi, or who spent hours, days,
> weeks, months, and years sitting in rooms listening to him
> talk, or working side by side with him getting to see *how*
> he worked, try to imagine for a moment the level of AVERSION
> a supposedly strong TMer must have had to have meditated
> regularly for 20 to 30 years and yet *avoided* ever seeing
> him in public. It's almost unbelievable. Claiming to revere
> someone as a great spiritual teacher, or even *their teacher*
> or "master," and yet finding ways *for decades* to avoid ever
> meeting him. And *then*, years later, presenting themselves
> as "authorities" on "What Maharishi taught." Scary.
>
> When it comes to spiritual teachers, my contention is that
> there is a difference between real and Memorex. If nothing
> else, the Memorex version disallows any perception of the
> teacher's "vibe," and what it was like to be around him.
> How can the Memorex set even *begin* to claim to be know-
> ledgeable enough about the subject of charisma or darshan
> if they have never experienced it? And yet they do.
>
> On another level, there is the issue of expurgation. At one
> point in my life, I would say that I had probably listened
> to or watched as many tapes of Maharishi as anyone on this
> forum. I was in charge of the Western Regional Office, and
> thus in charge of its tape library, which contained thousands
> of tapes. All of them were essentially "my private video and
> audio library." I could take them home and listen to them
> anytime I wanted, and was such a TB dweeb that I actually
> did. :-)
>
> But then, about 1976, the first "recalls" and attempts at
> systematic expurgation started. We started getting demands
> from "International" to send them our copies of certain
> tapes. And when I say "demands," I mean demands. If we did
> not comply, they sent someone over to the US to collect them
> from us. We were then told that they would be replaced by
> newer, "better quality" versions of the same tapes.
>
> This was only partially true. About 50% of the "recalled"
> tapes never appeared again in any format. And the tapes that
> were actually "replaced" invariably had "shrunk" somewhat.
> It was not uncommon for a tape that originally had lasted
> for 40 minutes and touched on some interesting or touchy
> subjects to come back to us in a "new, improved" version
> that was only 20 minutes long, carefully edited to make it
> seem that there had been no editing. At that point I stopped
> listening to the tapes, because I knew that there was never
> going to be anything interesting on any of them from then
> on out.
>
> Now try to imagine the Memorex set, who never knew that this
> was being done. There they'd be, sitting in some TM center
> or on some residence course thinking that they were getting
> the "real" Maharishi, all while listening to the 20-minute
> expurgated version of one of his tapes.
>
> But the biggest issue is that the Memorex set *never met
> the man*. They never had a chance to sit through an unexpur-
> gated lecture, and watch his thought processes as he form-
> lated it, without the benefit of "revisionist history"
> editing later. More important, they never got to feel the
> "vibe" of the man, or see him in any of his...uh...lesser
> moments, like the ones in which he said "We never speak
> ill of others," and then followed it up -- sometimes in
> the *same* talk -- with "George W. Bush is a rakshasa"
> or "England is a Scorpion Nation." The Memorex set missed
> out on all of these moments that could potentially cause
> cognitive dissonance.
>
> My feeling is that this is exactly why they avoided ever
> seeing Maharishi "live." The Memorex set is *terrified*
> of cognitive dissonance. They like their "spiritual teach-
> ings" edited, simplified down to a simplistic level for
> the lowest common denominator, and expurgated. Very, very
> expurgated. IMO they studiously avoided ever seeing MMY
> "live" because they preferred their FANTASIES of the
> man, and didn't want those fantasies messed with by such
> a nasty thing as reality.
>
> Me, I would never claim to "know" stuff about a spiritual
> teacher I had not met and spent some time with. For example,
> I would never claim to "know" Chogyam Trungpa, even though
> I have read many of his books. I've also heard things about
> him and his lifestyle from those who did meet and work with
> him, and I tend to value their insights almost more than
> I value his own writing. One of the reasons for this is
> that Trungpa could write like a mofo, but I know from several
> people who watched him create his books that he often did so
> while downing a couple of quarts of vodka during the creation
> process. In one sitting or "writing session." Go figure. Now
> try to imagine what a person "knowing" Trungpa only from his
> books -- some of which were *brilliant* -- might think of
> him if they didn't know that he had written them while half
> or totally drunk. They'd have only a partial picture of the
> man, an expurgated picture.
>
> That's the picture of Maharishi that I think the Memorex set
> has. I think they cling to it because they're reluctant to
> admit their own spiritual laziness in never having expended
> the effort to actually see him "live," and I think that they
> cling to it because they actually *prefer* the simplistic,
> heavily edited, expurgated version of the man and "What he
> taught."
>
> And yet they talk, talk, talk about the "truth" of "What
> Maharishi taught," which they know solely from his tapes and
> his books (some of which were not even written by him). Truth?
> I say to them the same thing Jack Nicholson said to Tom Cruise
> in A Few Good Men. "The truth? You can't *handle* the truth."
>
