May I say this below piece is a winner as typed by curtisdeltablues. How profound! Really! Read it Mr. Lynch! Feel it! It is only honesty and that can be utilized for the good. Preacher mode today, I am in, my stupid post is intentional. haha No argument here from my unenlightened soul. It does appear David S, did not come with an agenda and what a heck of an experience he had! If we could only record our experiences onto digital vid, it would be like http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/ haha. I do believe David S.'s experience is pretty remarkable and bold as _uck and it is a bit of a shocker to particular elders, I am sure. Did I use the word, "elders?" No reference pun to Mormans, sorry. lol Embrace the youth and find the answers become more enlightening!
--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > I believe that there is an important distinction between agenda and point of > view. If David is to be believed about his initial interest in the project, > he did not come in with an agenda to make the movement look bad. Quite the > opposite, he liked his TM practice and admired David Lynch. What developed > through his project was something that distinguishes this kind of work from a > piece on 60 minutes, his own POV which then shaped how he edited the piece. > It is your POV that would shape a documentary with the balance that there is > more positive than negative in a documentary about Maharishi and his > movement. But that was not the conclusion he came to for himself if we are > to believe the second hand reports about the film. (I am open to the idea > that when I see it, I might declare it balanced according to my own POV.) > > You and I, Mark, Robin and many others had the experience of falling in love > with Maharishi the person. I don't think David had this experience. So it > is unlikely that he would take Mark's positive description of his time with > Maharishi with the same weight we might. > > And then again we will value his experiences very differently according to > our POV and supporting belief structure. Having sent my own experiences with > Maharishi through my updated epistemological sausage grinder, I can both > relate to Mark's personal experiences around Maharishi while not giving them > the same weight in their being more of a description of reality, than a > compelling subjective experience that has more to do with Mark than > Maharishi. While being sympathetic concerning the compelling nature of these > experiences, I may have come to different conclusions about what they > ultimately mean in our quest to understand life. > > But a good documentary is not only judged by how much it conforms to an idea > of balance. Give me a camera crew and I will create an advocacy piece for my > own POV and make it as compelling as possible while trying to stay within > ethical bounds of not deliberately misleading the viewer. And the viewer and > judge if the POV shared is a compelling case or is just a skewed view. I > trust a piece more that lets me in on the director's POV rather than a doc > whose bias is either not explicit, or worse yet, when the director's bias is > unknown to themselves. > > We also have the conflicting mixed bag that presents itself when we get into > reporting on something as complex as Maharishi and his minions. Having spent > some time with the press who tried to get the story as David did, I can > report that the movement presents itself as vain, fey, pompous, deluded and > creepily unaware that its bullshit PR is not flying to outsiders trying to > get the story right. I heard time and time again that the story they were > trying to tell got turned into the resistance of the movement to their > telling it objectively. And the switch from Goulab Jamin sweet to the raging > Bevan was often swift and sometimes scary. > > Without an insider's view that we shared, the movement looks like any other > self important group who claims exclusive possession of the highest teaching. > And I really can't argue with them because I suspect they are right. My > enjoyment of TM and my affection for Maharishi does not mean that I am any > closer to understanding the reality of life than someone who does not share > my personal history. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > David, who made the film, definitely had an agenda. He interviewed me by > > phone. I emphasized repeatedly that he should tell the whole story, and that > > an honest telling would contain more positive than negative. But it appears > > that he just wanted to do a hatchet job. So he interviewed Mark for two > > hours, and chose something Mark said during those two hours that sounds > > negative. > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > On Behalf Of tedadams108 > > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:08 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, > > > > You're correct, I just didn't want to go on memory regarding > > any particular thing Mark said. I watched the film late at > > night, it's in german, and I was not focused only on what > > Mark said. If I knew this issue regarding the sandals was going > > to come up today I would have paid more attention. Fortunately > > in his response, Mark does talk about some of the things he > > said, albeit with a different slant than what comes out in the > > film. If you read Mark's post it's clear that unlike your > > impression that Mark never said anything bad about Maharishi, > > that in the film several negative things are said. Granted > > Mark's point about a paradox requires some positive points be > > made. Anyone who views the film will not debate how Maharishi > > was portrayed by Mark. There seems to be a tendency for people > > on here to make complicated and pick apart something that > > was intended to be simple. In this case, simply..... > > > > 1. Mark said very negative things about Maharishi. > > 2. Mark claims that the sandals worn by Maharishi > > have a magical quality. (IMO to enhance their marketability.) > > 3. Paradox aside, appeared contradictory. > > > > To speak ill of someone then to turn around and try to profit > > from the man's sandals is unsettling at best. Money often causes > > one to compromise principles. I think that may be the case here. > > > > If the shoe (sandal) fits....... > > > > --- In [email protected] > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > [mailto:[email protected] > > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> ] > > > On Behalf Of tedadams108 > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:11 AM > > > To: [email protected] <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do have compassion for Mark or anyone in financial difficulties. > > > I have been observing the comments on Fairfield Life for many > > > years but until today was not inspired to post one of my own. > > > For some reason it was hard for me to resist pointing out the > > > hypocrisy since I had just seen the film. Perhaps I was a little > > > "colorful" with my words, but they pale in comparison to the words > > > used in the interview. Obviously there are people on here that > > > fit either into the pro-TM camp or the anti-TM camp. I apparently hit > > > a nerve. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the facts > > > and people can spin them the way they want. Interestingly, those > > > who have an issue with my post are not addressing it's main point, > > > rather my mention of being compassionate or acknowledging that > > > many have enjoyed financial success and have attributed it to their > > > TM practice. The main point is not debatable. > > > > > > The main reason it's not debatable is that you don't trust your memory > > well > > > enough to tell us what Mark said, so we can't very well debate something > > we > > > know nothing about. > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3776 - Release Date: 07/20/11 > > >
