[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Turq, you write good often. Back home now from the crusades with the lady-saints catching up on FFL; this post is some good writing with original criticism. Well, no, it's really not. It's shallow and way overblown. Painting cartoons with a broad brush is easy, but reality is a lot more nuanced and subtle and complex and contradictory. Ah, Judy's back. And who does she choose to attack first? Duh...no surprise there. I could have made money betting on it, except that no one would have taken the bet; they know Judy and her ongoing Gotta Trash Barry fetish far too well to waste their money on a sucker bet. :-) Next will be coldblueiceman, whose *character* she will attack, because she cannot refute his facts. Mark my words. :-) snip The novel is an alternative future, in which Germany and Japan won World War II, and so there are some musings in it about the German character and the German mentality. You know them -- the ones that drove them to eradicate Jews and other non-Aryans and try to rule the world and make it over into the idealized image they had of it in their minds, the image they assumed came from God, and that came only to them, because they alone were godly. snip Then I thought about Judy and some of the other TM TBs on this forum, and the kinds of things they say about their fellow seekers and their fellow man, as if they didn't really CONSIDER these other people their fellow man, but something *lesser*, something foul and in the way of the realization of their greater vision for what the world could be. Just for instance, none of this is true of me or Lawson (but then of course we're not TBs either). Any time one is tempted to compare others to Nazis, especially those one knows personally (even if only electronically), one should sit back and have a long think about whether one has perhaps begun to lose touch with reality in one's eagerness to impress others with the grandiosity of one's ideas. Unless, of course, the people in question really act like Nazis. Like you, meine TB liebchen. :-) [quoting Dick:] And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. They are overcome by some archtype; their egos have expanded psychotically so that they cannot tell where they begin and the godhead leaves off. It is not hubris, not pride; it is the inflation of the ego to its ultimate -- confusion between him who worships and that which is worshipped. Man has not eaten God; God has eaten man. And this is, perhaps just ignorantly, bigoted against certain forms of Eastern spirituality. Not that some practitioners of these forms can't become psychotic if they get deeply into moodmaking; but Dick seems to be completely unaware that the very basis for Vedanta, for example, is that Atman = Brahman. Uh, Judy...you should do a little research before you choose to slime someone. Philip K. Dick had almost certainly read more books about Eastern philosophy and spirituality than YOU have. He was a compulsive reader of such things. He was con- sidered somewhat of a scholar on Eastern thought. Not as much as Jack Kerouac (who wrote whole vol- umes on Buddhist thought), but a scholar nonethe- less. Unlike you, who merely read books to verify what you already know from Maharishi. :-) The entire NOVEL I posted a quote from was built around the use of the I Ching, for example. And it is permeated with a fine and accurate understanding of Japanese Buddhism and Shintoism as well. Of course you wouldn't know that, because you've never read it. H...sounds as if you're reviewing things without reading them again. Typical. Gotta Trash Barry at all costs, and anyone he likes, even if I've never read the author he likes. *Especially* if I've never read the author he likes. :-) What PKD had that you don't, however, was the ability to read something and not automatically buy it as Truth. He knew FAR better than you the *theory* behind Eastern philosophies, but *at the same time* was able to view their claims (and, more important, the actions of those who made the claims) as psychosis, when such an analysis was valid. Besides, your entire argument above is a straw man, thrown together for no other reason than Gotta Trash Barry. In the passage, Dick was describing NAZIS, who did NOT believe that Atman = Brahman. You *snipped* the important part of the quote I posted and rapped about. And in my opinion you did so because it applies to YOU more than anything else in the passage, and more than anyone else on this forum: Their view; it is cosmic. Not of a man here, a child there, but an abstraction: race,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Turq, you write good often. Back home now from the crusades with the lady-saints catching up on FFL; this post is some good writing with original criticism. Well, no, it's really not. It's shallow and way overblown. Painting cartoons with a broad brush is easy, but reality is a lot more nuanced and subtle and complex and contradictory. Ah, Judy's back. And who does she choose to attack first? Doug's post quoting yours was the first I read when I got back. After I've been away, I start with the most recent posts and work my way back. snip Next will be coldblueiceman, whose *character* she will attack, because she cannot refute his facts. Mark my words. :-) Sez Barry, not having read my responses to coldblu to see that I've refuted his facts and not attacked his character. Will Barry acknowledge his error? Don't hold your breath. Barry is not to be held accountable for anything he says. snip Any time one is tempted to compare others to Nazis, especially those one knows personally (even if only electronically), one should sit back and have a long think about whether one has perhaps begun to lose touch with reality in one's eagerness to impress others with the grandiosity of one's ideas. Unless, of course, the people in question really act like Nazis. Like you, meine TB liebchen. :-) Like I said: Time to sit back and have a long think about whether you've lost touch with reality in your eagerness to impress others with the grandiosity of your ideas. Speaking of predictability, by the time I'd read the third line of the second paragraph of your post, I knew you would go on to suggest that TMers were Nazis. [quoting Dick:] And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. They are overcome by some archtype; their egos have expanded psychotically so that they cannot tell where they begin and the godhead leaves off. It is not hubris, not pride; it is the inflation of the ego to its ultimate -- confusion between him who worships and that which is worshipped. Man has not eaten God; God has eaten man. And this is, perhaps just ignorantly, bigoted against certain forms of Eastern spirituality. Not that some practitioners of these forms can't become psychotic if they get deeply into moodmaking; but Dick seems to be completely unaware that the very basis for Vedanta, for example, is that Atman = Brahman. Uh, Judy...you should do a little research before you choose to slime someone. Philip K. Dick had almost certainly read more books about Eastern philosophy and spirituality than YOU have. Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to mislead his readers. He was a compulsive reader of such things. He was con- sidered somewhat of a scholar on Eastern thought. Not as much as Jack Kerouac (who wrote whole vol- umes on Buddhist thought), but a scholar nonethe- less. Unlike you, who merely read books to verify what you already know from Maharishi. :-) Uh, no. Read quite a bit before I ever encountered MMY's teaching. snip read it. H...sounds as if you're reviewing things without reading them again. Uh, no. I was reviewing the paragraph you posted, you see, and I read it several times. snip What PKD had that you don't, however, was the ability to read something and not automatically buy it as Truth. He knew FAR better than you the *theory* behind Eastern philosophies, but *at the same time* was able to view their claims (and, more important, the actions of those who made the claims) as psychosis, when such an analysis was valid. Which is just what I said: Not that some practitioners of these forms can't become psychotic if they get deeply into moodmaking... Funny you missed that. But in the paragraph you quoted, he appeared to be dismissing the validity of the whole approach, rather than noting that it could be valid if it was undertaken properly, and that the people he was referring to had gone overboard. Besides, your entire argument above is a straw man, thrown together for no other reason than Gotta Trash Barry. In the passage, Dick was describing NAZIS, who did NOT believe that Atman = Brahman. And you were the one who claimed he was talking about TMers on FFL (see subject heading, for one). That's what I'm addressing, the absurdity of the notion, which you've just confirmed, thank you very much. You *snipped* the important part of the quote I posted and rapped about. And in my opinion you did so because
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Turq, you write good often. Back home now from the crusades with the lady-saints catching up on FFL; this post is some good writing with original criticism. Well, no, it's really not. It's shallow and way overblown. Painting cartoons with a broad brush is easy, but reality is a lot more nuanced and subtle and complex and contradictory. Ah, Judy's back. And who does she choose to attack first? Doug's post quoting yours was the first I read when I got back. After I've been away, I start with the most recent posts and work my way back. While that may be true, I think everyone here knows WHY you replied to it, trashing me. It's because Doug found something of value in my post, and complimented me on it. Can't have that. Time for Gotta Trash Barry mode. :-) snip Next will be coldblueiceman, whose *character* she will attack, because she cannot refute his facts. Mark my words. :-) Sez Barry, not having read my responses to coldblu to see that I've refuted his facts and not attacked his character. Will Barry acknowledge his error? Don't hold your breath. Barry is not to be held accountable for anything he says. Here is what Judy said about coldblu, in her first posts. You can decide whether it was an attack or not. I tend to think it is...she is *explicitly* attempting to undermine his credibility. (By the way, I read these after writing my prediction.) ...it's a good idea to take anything ColdBlu says with a large salt-shaker handy. See my caveat about ColdBlu and salt shakers in my previous post. (See ColdBlu/salt shakers caveat.) Admittedly, this is not the unprovoked hatchet job that Judy did on John Knapp when he reappeared on FFL, but it IS just as I predicted. And this won't be the end of it. As coldblu joins in, Judy will find more and more opportunities to impugn his character and his credibility. Again, mark my words. snip [quoting Dick:] And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. They are overcome by some archtype; their egos have expanded psychotically so that they cannot tell where they begin and the godhead leaves off. It is not hubris, not pride; it is the inflation of the ego to its ultimate -- confusion between him who worships and that which is worshipped. Man has not eaten God; God has eaten man. And this is, perhaps just ignorantly, bigoted against certain forms of Eastern spirituality. Not that some practitioners of these forms can't become psychotic if they get deeply into moodmaking; but Dick seems to be completely unaware that the very basis for Vedanta, for example, is that Atman = Brahman. Uh, Judy...you should do a little research before you choose to slime someone. Philip K. Dick had almost certainly read more books about Eastern philosophy and spirituality than YOU have. Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to mislead his readers. She says, STILL without having read the book. Does anyone here remember Judy's Apocalypto meltdown? :-) He was a compulsive reader of such things. He was con- sidered somewhat of a scholar on Eastern thought. Not as much as Jack Kerouac (who wrote whole vol- umes on Buddhist thought), but a scholar nonethe- less. Unlike you, who merely read books to verify what you already know from Maharishi. :-) Uh, no. Read quite a bit before I ever encountered MMY's teaching. Several *thousands* of books on Eastern philosophy? According to his good friends in the SciFi community, that's what PKD had on his shelves, and could discuss intelligently. snip read it. H...sounds as if you're reviewing things without reading them again. Uh, no. I was reviewing the paragraph you posted, you see, and I read it several times. And above, based on only that paragraph, you accused PKD of bigotry and of intentionally trying to mislead his readers. This is a deja vu of your Apocalypto meltdown, right? :-) snip You *snipped* the important part of the quote I posted and rapped about. And in my opinion you did so because it applies to YOU more than anything else in the passage, and more than anyone else on this forum: Their view; it is cosmic. Not of a man here, a child there, but an abstraction: race, land, Volk. Land. Blut. Ehre. Not of honorable men but of Ehre itself, honor; the abstract is real, the actual is
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Doug's post quoting yours was the first I read when I got back. After I've been away, I start with the most recent posts and work my way back. While that may be true, I think everyone here knows WHY you replied to it, trashing me. It's because Doug found something of value in my post, and complimented me on it. Actually, it's because I read the post Doug quoted and found it, shall we say, seriously wanting. Next will be coldblueiceman, whose *character* she will attack, because she cannot refute his facts. Mark my words. :-) Sez Barry, not having read my responses to coldblu to see that I've refuted his facts and not attacked his character. Will Barry acknowledge his error? Don't hold your breath. Barry is not to be held accountable for anything he says. Here is what Judy said about coldblu, in her first posts. You can decide whether it was an attack or not. I tend to think it is...she is *explicitly* attempting to undermine his credibility. (By the way, I read these after writing my prediction.) ...it's a good idea to take anything ColdBlu says with a large salt-shaker handy. See my caveat about ColdBlu and salt shakers in my previous post. (See ColdBlu/salt shakers caveat.) ColdBlu frequently gets his facts wrong (like his assertion that MMY's Shankaracharya didn't show up at his funeral). That's not a character flaw unless the motivation behind it is malign. I didn't speak to his motivation at all. The salt-shaker metaphor simply means don't take his word for anything, because he's often mistaken. Admittedly, this is not the unprovoked hatchet job that Judy did on John Knapp when he reappeared on FFL, but it IS just as I predicted. And this won't be the end of it. As coldblu joins in, Judy will find more and more opportunities to impugn his character and his credibility. Again, mark my words. Actually, as Barry knows, I engage ColdBlu only to correct him when I see that he's gotten his facts wrong. snip Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to mislead his readers. She says, STILL without having read the book. Referring, one more time, to what you quoted, not to the book as a whole. Does he then go on to acknowledge that he was mistaken and had inadvertently slammed the Vedanta system? If so, please quote that acknowledgment. Does anyone here remember Judy's Apocalypto meltdown? :-) That would be the meltdown that Barry made up out of whole cloth and reinvokes at every opportunity as if it had really happened. He was a compulsive reader of such things. He was con- sidered somewhat of a scholar on Eastern thought. Not as much as Jack Kerouac (who wrote whole vol- umes on Buddhist thought), but a scholar nonethe- less. Unlike you, who merely read books to verify what you already know from Maharishi. :-) Uh, no. Read quite a bit before I ever encountered MMY's teaching. Several *thousands* of books on Eastern philosophy? Did I suggest I had read as many books as he did, or just that it wasn't the case that I had merely read books to 'verify' what I already knew from MMY? Isn't it funny how Barry constantly hallucinates that I said things I didn't? Wonder how that happens. snip read it. H...sounds as if you're reviewing things without reading them again. Uh, no. I was reviewing the paragraph you posted, you see, and I read it several times. And above, based on only that paragraph, you accused PKD of bigotry and of intentionally trying to mislead his readers. In that paragraph, yes. You *snipped* the important part of the quote I posted and rapped about. And in my opinion you did so because it applies to YOU more than anything else in the passage, and more than anyone else on this forum: Their view; it is cosmic. Not of a man here, a child there, but an abstraction: race, land, Volk. Land. Blut. Ehre. Not of honorable men but of Ehre itself, honor; the abstract is real, the actual is invisible to them. Obviously it doesn't apply to me at all. *In my opinion*, it applies to you more than any other regular poster to this forum. And has for years. As I said: When you're tempted to compare people you know personally (even if only electronically) to Nazis, it's a good idea to sit back and ask yourself whether you're beginning to lose touch with reality in your eagerness to impress others with the grandiosity of your thinking. But the interesting thing here is, this paragraph *contradicts* the paragraph I quoted. The above has nothing to do with God but with race, land, Volk, Blut, Ehre, which is accurate as far as the Nazis were concerned. Did you miss,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to mislead his readers. She says, STILL without having read the book. Referring, one more time, to what you quoted, not to the book as a whole. Does he then go on to acknowledge that he was mistaken and had inadvertently slammed the Vedanta system? If so, please quote that acknowledgment. Of course he doesn't. No such acknowledgement is necessary. He did NOT slam the Vedanta system. It was not even mentioned. He merely presented a subjective point of view (only one of many) on the Nazi mentality. And even if he HAD had Vedanta in mind, no apology or acknowledgment would be necessary. All he did was to present an opinion. You 1) took offense where none was intended, 2) had *no earthly idea* what the book or even the quote was about *when* you took offense, and 3) still don't see that it's YOU who is not quite sane for taking offense. Anyone can believe -- and say -- anything they want about any philosophy or religion on the planet. Or do you feel differently? You seem to. You want a dead man to apologize for something that offered no offense to any sane person on the planet. :-) Does anyone here remember Judy's Apocalypto meltdown? :-) That would be the meltdown that Barry made up out of whole cloth and reinvokes at every opportunity as if it had really happened. It *did* happen, Judy. You called Mel Gibson a Christian bigot and claimed that he was guilty of bigotry over A FILM THAT YOU NEVER SAW. And now you are doing it AGAIN, over A BOOK THAT YOU HAVE NEVER READ. I keep bringing it up because it points out so MUCH about you and how you think and act, Judy. You tout honesty and act dishonestly. TO THIS DAY you have no earthly idea what Apocalypto was about, or how Mel Gibson presented his view of the Maya in it. But you will defend to your dying day your claim that he was a Christian bigot for making it. What a JOKE you are, Judy. THAT is why I keep bring- ing this up. And now you've given me yet ANOTHER example of doing the same thing to keep bringing up. You may rest assured that I will. :-) snip read it. H...sounds as if you're reviewing things without reading them again. Uh, no. I was reviewing the paragraph you posted, you see, and I read it several times. And above, based on only that paragraph, you accused PKD of bigotry and of intentionally trying to mislead his readers. In that paragraph, yes. Please explain to us what he was trying to mislead his readers ABOUT. You seem genuinely offended by what he said. WHY? Please explain, if you can. snip But the interesting thing here is, this paragraph *contradicts* the paragraph I quoted. The above has nothing to do with God but with race, land, Volk, Blut, Ehre, which is accurate as far as the Nazis were concerned. Did you miss, *even in the excerpt* you read, that this was a character's mental musings, *trying to figure something out*? He looks at it from many different points of view, *even within the quote*. Right. And ends up dissing a belief system you yourself noted that the Nazis never held. SO WHAT if he dissed a belief system? Is THAT what you are pissed off at him about, enough to call him a bigot and claim that he was misleading his readers, in A BOOK YOU HAVE NEVER READ? You're sounding a lot like a book burner here, Judy. Why can't he say anything he damned pleases? It's HIS book. At least he wrote one. You certainly never have. In fact, he wrote dozens of novels and 121 short stories, while you have written...what was it again?...diddleysquat? All you've ever done is be a schoolmarm and correct the papers of people who CAN write. Do you even bother to *read* the books you edit, Judy? Clearly, you don't feel the need to do so to comment on an author and his intentions. :-) snip Judy, YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN. In a compulsive, knee- jerk attempt to weigh in negatively against something I feel positively about, you are willing to make wild speculations and claims ABOUT A BOOK YOU HAVE NEVER READ. Mmm, no, I was commenting on the paragraphs you quoted, not the book, and not because you feel positively about it but because you tried to use those paragraphs to bash the TMers here and compare them to Nazis. And what was wrong with that? Again, you are implying that there is something WRONG with me holding an opinion that there are aspects of the Nazi mentality in the TMO. If so, I plead guilty. I think that much of the movement had Nazi mentality stamped all over it in big letters. So why do you feel the need to comment on this? Am
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to mislead his readers. She says, STILL without having read the book. Referring, one more time, to what you quoted, not to the book as a whole. Does he then go on to acknowledge that he was mistaken and had inadvertently slammed the Vedanta system? If so, please quote that acknowledgment. Of course he doesn't. No such acknowledgement is necessary. OK, so then I can assume that paragraph represents his thinking, that he didn't change his mind. That's what I was asking about, you see, whether the book as a whole said something different. If it did, then I *would* have to read the book to evaluate that paragraph. He did NOT slam the Vedanta system. Perhaps inadvertently. But you took it and ran with it. snip Anyone can believe -- and say -- anything they want about any philosophy or religion on the planet. Or do you feel differently? Actually, I should ask whether *you* feel differently, since you seem not to want me to have the right to call a perspective bigoted. You seem to. You want a dead man to apologize for something that offered no offense to any sane person on the planet. :-) Nope, wasn't asking for an apology. More hallucination from Barry. Does anyone here remember Judy's Apocalypto meltdown? :-) snip I keep bringing it up because it points out so MUCH about you and how you think and act, Judy. You tout honesty and act dishonestly. TO THIS DAY you have no earthly idea what Apocalypto was about, or how Mel Gibson presented his view of the Maya in it. Well, yes, Barry, I do, on the basis of reading a whole lot of reviews describing what went on in the film and how Gibson presented his view of the Maya in it. Since they were all very largely in agreement on these points, I think it's unlikely they were all lying or all hallucinating a totally different film than the one Gibson made. snip And above, based on only that paragraph, you accused PKD of bigotry and of intentionally trying to mislead his readers. In that paragraph, yes. Please explain to us what he was trying to mislead his readers ABOUT. About the fact that a person not being able to tell where he or she leaves off and the Godhead begins doesn't necessarily mean confusion between worshipper and worshipped, and that this doesn't necessarily represent a psychotically expanded ego, i.e., that it can be the desired end result of a lifetime of spiritual dedication and expansion of consciousness according to a specific metaphysical system. And in any case, as you assert, agreeing with me, that description *didn't apply to the Nazis anyway*. So it appears that he was slamming the very idea of realization of the union between the human being and God in what amounted to a non sequitur in terms of the Nazis. snip Right. And ends up dissing a belief system you yourself noted that the Nazis never held. SO WHAT if he dissed a belief system? Is THAT what you are pissed off at him about, enough to call him a bigot and claim that he was misleading his readers, in A BOOK YOU HAVE NEVER READ? You're sounding a lot like a book burner here, Judy. Why can't he say anything he damned pleases? Why are you hallucinating that I suggested he couldn't say anything he damned pleases? And why are you suggesting I may not call him a bigot if what pleases him appears to me to be bigotry? snip Mmm, no, I was commenting on the paragraphs you quoted, not the book, and not because you feel positively about it but because you tried to use those paragraphs to bash the TMers here and compare them to Nazis. And what was wrong with that? Again, you are implying that there is something WRONG with me holding an opinion that there are aspects of the Nazi mentality in the TMO. If so, I plead guilty. I think that much of the movement had Nazi mentality stamped all over it in big letters. So why do you feel the need to comment on this? Why do you feel the need to criticize me for doing so? What's wrong is that it bears no relationship to reality. It's pure fantasy motivated by hatred and anger. Am I not *allowed* to hold an opinion that you don't agree with? Just as much as I'm allowed to say I think it represents a serious breach with reality. snip You're not a critic, Judy, you're a fanatic. And with every passing day, you're showing indications of becoming a more and more dangerous fanatic. Today you're calling upon long-dead authors to apologize for HAVING AN OPINION THAT YOU DON'T LIKE. Tomorrow, who
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
In the following post, and in no post in this thread or to this forum, did I ever suggest that I wanted to ban Judy saying it was offensive. Judy made that up -- the *same* thing that she is accusing me of doing throughout the post. As she herself says: The real sign of fanaticism is making up stuff and putting it in other people's mouths... By her OWN definition, Judy has just demonstrated that she is a fanatic. I don't want to ban you from saying stupid and fanatical things here, Judy. I purposefully *taunt* you into saying stupid and fanatical things here. Haven't you figured that out yet? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to mislead his readers. She says, STILL without having read the book. Referring, one more time, to what you quoted, not to the book as a whole. Does he then go on to acknowledge that he was mistaken and had inadvertently slammed the Vedanta system? If so, please quote that acknowledgment. Of course he doesn't. No such acknowledgement is necessary. OK, so then I can assume that paragraph represents his thinking, that he didn't change his mind. That's what I was asking about, you see, whether the book as a whole said something different. If it did, then I *would* have to read the book to evaluate that paragraph. He did NOT slam the Vedanta system. Perhaps inadvertently. But you took it and ran with it. snip Anyone can believe -- and say -- anything they want about any philosophy or religion on the planet. Or do you feel differently? Actually, I should ask whether *you* feel differently, since you seem not to want me to have the right to call a perspective bigoted. You seem to. You want a dead man to apologize for something that offered no offense to any sane person on the planet. :-) Nope, wasn't asking for an apology. More hallucination from Barry. Does anyone here remember Judy's Apocalypto meltdown? :-) snip I keep bringing it up because it points out so MUCH about you and how you think and act, Judy. You tout honesty and act dishonestly. TO THIS DAY you have no earthly idea what Apocalypto was about, or how Mel Gibson presented his view of the Maya in it. Well, yes, Barry, I do, on the basis of reading a whole lot of reviews describing what went on in the film and how Gibson presented his view of the Maya in it. Since they were all very largely in agreement on these points, I think it's unlikely they were all lying or all hallucinating a totally different film than the one Gibson made. snip And above, based on only that paragraph, you accused PKD of bigotry and of intentionally trying to mislead his readers. In that paragraph, yes. Please explain to us what he was trying to mislead his readers ABOUT. About the fact that a person not being able to tell where he or she leaves off and the Godhead begins doesn't necessarily mean confusion between worshipper and worshipped, and that this doesn't necessarily represent a psychotically expanded ego, i.e., that it can be the desired end result of a lifetime of spiritual dedication and expansion of consciousness according to a specific metaphysical system. And in any case, as you assert, agreeing with me, that description *didn't apply to the Nazis anyway*. So it appears that he was slamming the very idea of realization of the union between the human being and God in what amounted to a non sequitur in terms of the Nazis. snip Right. And ends up dissing a belief system you yourself noted that the Nazis never held. SO WHAT if he dissed a belief system? Is THAT what you are pissed off at him about, enough to call him a bigot and claim that he was misleading his readers, in A BOOK YOU HAVE NEVER READ? You're sounding a lot like a book burner here, Judy. Why can't he say anything he damned pleases? Why are you hallucinating that I suggested he couldn't say anything he damned pleases? And why are you suggesting I may not call him a bigot if what pleases him appears to me to be bigotry? snip Mmm, no, I was commenting on the paragraphs you quoted, not the book, and not because you feel positively about it but because you tried to use those paragraphs to bash the TMers here and compare them to Nazis. And what was wrong with that? Again, you are implying that there is something WRONG with me holding an opinion that there are
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the following post, and in no post in this thread or to this forum, did I ever suggest that I wanted to ban Judy saying it was offensive. Right. Barry claimed I wanted to ban Dick from saying what I thought was offensive, that I had insisted Dick apologize, that I sounded like a book-burner, that I had a Nazi mentality, was a fanatic, etc., etc., etc., and wondered why I felt the need to comment on any of it. And he hasn't acknowledged that any of his false accusations needed correction. Judy made that up -- the *same* thing that she is accusing me of doing throughout the post. As she herself says: The real sign of fanaticism is making up stuff and putting it in other people's mouths... By her OWN definition, Judy has just demonstrated that she is a fanatic. Once in a while to make a point doesn't count. You do it *constantly*, as you did throughout your previous post. I don't want to ban you from saying stupid and fanatical things here, Judy. I purposefully *taunt* you into saying stupid and fanatical things here. And you're so successful in taunting me to say stupid and fanatical things here that you have to *invent stuff out of whole cloth* to make me sound stupid and fanatical, and then totally freak out when I call you on it. You're doing a terrific job, Barry. It's just not the job you think you're doing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
Turq, you write good often. Back home now from the crusades with the lady-saints catching up on FFL; this post is some good writing with original criticism. Is pretty good framework for thinking. Thanks for the rap. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in Iowa --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yesterday evening I had dinner in Barcelona with some friends, and then caught the last train back to Sitges. So there I was, at midnight, sitting on a Spanish train rereading Philip K. Dick's Hugo Award-winning novel The Man in the High Castle, and I got to thinking how much of what he was saying in it reminded me of FFL, and some of the things said here. The novel is an alternative future, in which Germany and Japan won World War II, and so there are some musings in it about the German character and the German mentality. You know them -- the ones that drove them to eradicate Jews and other non-Aryans and try to rule the world and make it over into the idealized image they had of it in their minds, the image they assumed came from God, and that came only to them, because they alone were godly. Then I got home and spent a few minutes scanning FFL, and watching Off melt down and find a reason to condemn almost everyone in the universe except himself, and find ways to excuse Maharishi for backing insane dictators. I saw him claim that Maharishi had said that Hitler was near enlight- enment, and remembered hearing Maharishi saying that myself. Then I thought about Judy and some of the other TM TBs on this forum, and the kinds of things they say about their fellow seekers and their fellow man, as if they didn't really CONSIDER these other people their fellow man, but something *lesser*, something foul and in the way of the realization of their greater vision for what the world could be. And then I read Dick Mays' mindless reposting of the latest mindless blurb about Vastu, and Doug's mindful satire about the Global Committee for Safety and Purity of the Teaching, Vigilantes for the Age of Enlightenment, and remembered the times in the TM movement when such things were NOT satire, but everyday reality. And then I read some more of Off's meltdown, and rants by other people who still believe, after all these years, that they can control the weather and stock markets and, basically, control all of the things they don't like in the world just by *willing* the things they don't like to just GO AWAY, and I sat amazed at the levels of insanity I was reading, and shook my head and decided to go to bed. But then I decided to reread one last passage from PKD before drifting off to sleep. In it, he has one of his characters ponder the mentality of the Germans who started World War II (and who, in this novel, won it, and shortly thereafter exterminated not only the Jews, but pretty much anyone else on the planet they felt superior to, including almost all of Africa). This was written in 1962, Philip K. Dick in the mind of one of his characters, pondering, trying to get a handle on the insanity he saw in the WWII-era German mind. I think that his insights are still relevant, and somewhat applicable to the insanity of modern-day spiritual True Believers: But, Baynes thought, what does it mean, insane? A legal definition. What do I mean? I feel it, see it, but what is it? He thought, It is something they do, something they are. It is -- their unconsciousness. Their lack of knowledge about others. Their not being aware of what they do to others, the destruction they have caused and are causing. No, he thought. That isn't it. I don't know; I sense it, intuit it. But -- they are purposely cruel . . . is that it? No. God, he thought. I can't find it, make it clear. Do they ignore parts of reality? Yes. But it is more. It is their plans. Yes, their plans. The conquering of the planets. Something fren- zied and demented, as was their conquering of Africa, and before that, Europe and Asia. Their view; it is cosmic. Not of a man here, a child there, but air abstraction: race, land, Volk. Land. Blut. Ehre. Not of honorable men but of Ehre itself, honor; the abstract is real, the actual is invisible to them. Die Gute, the here, the now, into the vast deep beyond, the unchanging. And that is fatal to life. Because even- tually there will be no life; there was once only the dust particles in space, the hot hydrogen gases, nothing more, and it will come again. This is an interval, ein Augenblick. The cosmic process is hurrying on, crushing life back into the granite and methane; the wheel turns for all life. It is all temporary. And they -- these madmen -- respond to the granite, the dust, the longing of the inamimate; they want to aid Nature. And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, you write good often. Back home now from the crusades with the lady-saints catching up on FFL; this post is some good writing with original criticism. Well, no, it's really not. It's shallow and way overblown. Painting cartoons with a broad brush is easy, but reality is a lot more nuanced and subtle and complex and contradictory. snip The novel is an alternative future, in which Germany and Japan won World War II, and so there are some musings in it about the German character and the German mentality. You know them -- the ones that drove them to eradicate Jews and other non-Aryans and try to rule the world and make it over into the idealized image they had of it in their minds, the image they assumed came from God, and that came only to them, because they alone were godly. snip Then I thought about Judy and some of the other TM TBs on this forum, and the kinds of things they say about their fellow seekers and their fellow man, as if they didn't really CONSIDER these other people their fellow man, but something *lesser*, something foul and in the way of the realization of their greater vision for what the world could be. Just for instance, none of this is true of me or Lawson (but then of course we're not TBs either). Any time one is tempted to compare others to Nazis, especially those one knows personally (even if only electronically), one should sit back and have a long think about whether one has perhaps begun to lose touch with reality in one's eagerness to impress others with the grandiosity of one's ideas. [quoting Dick:] And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. They are overcome by some archtype; their egos have expanded psychotically so that they cannot tell where they begin and the godhead leaves off. It is not hubris, not pride; it is the inflation of the ego to its ultimate -- confusion between him who worships and that which is worshipped. Man has not eaten God; God has eaten man. And this is, perhaps just ignorantly, bigoted against certain forms of Eastern spirituality. Not that some practitioners of these forms can't become psychotic if they get deeply into moodmaking; but Dick seems to be completely unaware that the very basis for Vedanta, for example, is that Atman = Brahman.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruth: Fair enough. I think I care what people think because I truly want to change how certain people think. Hopeless endeavor, eh? Just typing out my own perspective seems like a lower but achievable bar for me. Well said. That's why I'm here. I studied for a while with a spiritual teacher who was also a Ph.D. in English. He felt that having a hazy, imprecise view of what you believed was lazy, and that it trapped you in lazy, imprecise thinking. So he advised writing about one's beliefs and experiences as an ongoing exercise in clarifying and refining them. I write to try to clarify my own thoughts here on FFL, and at the same time, clarify my own thinking. It often comes out of the juxtaposition with someone else's post. Indeed it does. Someone says something, and that starts off a train of thought for me, and I follow it, and try to write down what it brings up in me. I rarely have any goal in mind for the post, and I almost never have any preaching in mind. I never have enough info on people here to understand what their beliefs mean to their happiness and sanity to assume that they need to change theirs. Yup. Even though Michael and Nabby and Judy keep claiming that I'm an anti-TMer, or that I am trying to change other people's minds about things, it just isn't true. I'm trying to change my *own* mind, challenge my own ideas and see which ones stand the test of time, and which don't. That's why my summer reading project is so fasc- inating for me. I'm rereading Philip K. Dick, who if nothing else was one of the most *self-honest* writers in history. He had some weird experiences, and flipped in and out of some weird mindstates. But, unlike lesser writers and lesser thinkers, he never assumed that his present point of view was right or The Truth. He was willing to challenge *anything* that he thought or experienced. He was even willing to entertain the notion that he himself was insane. That's refreshing in a world in which so many think that they are the only sane ones in a world of crazies. Even when I consider some POVs as completely fucking nuts! Indeed. For example, I may think that Lou Valentino is a couple of cans short of a six-pack, in-touch-with- reality-wise, but I love reading his posts. There is an ex-Rama student on another forum who is *completely* 'round the bend IMO, writing Proust-sized volumes of craziness on a daily basis, *without anyone listening to him* because he's been so abusive that they put him on a write only forum, where no one else can reply to him. (They did this for his own good, because when people did reply to him, he got abusive, and started making threats that were literally against the law and dangerous for him.) In my opinion he's completely cooked, mental toast, but I read his stuff anyway from time to time to see what being toast is LIKE. People hold beliefs for so many psychological reasons that the epistemological solidity of a position is often irrelevant to the humanistic relevance. I like that: humanistic relevance. That's sorta the bottom line for me. Does what this person believe benefit anyone on the planet except them? Is it *only* self-serving, or is there something of selflessness in it? That comes off as somewhat condescending, but I'm sure many view my own beliefs as just as removed from reality. Well I don't. I think you're pretty sane. Except for the boozing and having sex with women and enjoying music stuff, of course. That's just nuts. :-) So the playing field is even, we all circle each other with our better perspective. Or even our different perspective. THAT is the thing that makes some posters here much easier (and more pleasurable) to read than others. They throw out a different point of view on a subject, without declaring that it's better. And, in general, people react well to that. On the other hand, some seemingly *have* to present their point of view as better, and people *don't* react so well to that, for what should be obvious reasons. (Obvious, that is, to everyone but them.) That works for me. For me, too. I can feel as right as I want as long as I take into account that this is the same perspective everyone else has. It connects me to people who I totally disagree with. We are both humans enjoying being right. Or, in my case or PKD's case, just humans enjoying playing with ideas, with no earthly idea whether they are right or not. While unable to understand how full of shit we are in our blind spots! Ain't it grand! Yup. One of the things I like most about your posts, and your perspective, Curtis, is that you are often searching FOR your blind spots. You *like* becoming aware of them, noticing them, and dealing with them. Others are so terrified of their own blind spots that they claim -- over and over and over and over -- that they don't *have* any
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Tue, 7/1/08, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is no joke to even get close to interacting with that level of a person's identity. Yes it is. You really have to be trained well and very clear in your own psyche. I've seen some deprogrammers do some serious damage to people by tearing down belief structures simply because they had a need to make others think like themselves. Gotta agree with Dr. Pete on this one. While I admit that some in the counseling profession have good intentions and benign motives, this was not always the case. Because the Rama guy was so publicly contro- versial, some parents of students involved with him got freaked out and hired deprogrammers to get their sons and daughters back. The problem was that these deprogrammers were NOT trained in any kind of counseling or psychological techniques, and were in it for the money. (They charged the parents $50,000 to kidnap their kids and deprogram them.) As it turns out (I testified in a court case in which we put a couple of them behind bars) more than a few of them were ex-cons who had gotten into the deprog- ramming business because it WAS a business, and a low- risk business at that. What they did (kidnapping) was illegal, but in the anti-cult mindset of the times, the likelihood of them doing hard time was low. (The two guys we prosecuted got six months each, for kidnapping a young girl and holding her hostage for two weeks.) Hopefully those anti-cult hysteria days are now behind us, and more of the exit counselors these days are in fact well-intentioned and better trained. But it wasn't always the case. Many of them were motivated by money, and many of the ones who weren't were motivated just as Pete says below, by a need to impose their POV on others, to somehow validate it. Not saying you did this, Curtis, but I saw some former MIU guys do this sort of thing to some vulnerable people. It was all ego on the MIU guys' part. This is one of the reasons I try so hard NOT to try to change people's beliefs on this forum. I don't KNOW The Truth, and have seen far too many people who claimed to, and who did damage to others trying to make *them* know as well. To me, whether the person trying to impose his POV on someone else is part of a cult or trying to get someone out of a cult doesn't really matter -- the bottom line is that they are trying to impose their POV on someone else.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- On Wed, 7/2/08, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tony Abu-Nader spends most of his time meditating on the Pursha team, I believe. Bevan and Hagelin both are doing what their guru told them was the right thing for them to do. A guru never tells you what to do. That would serve no purpose whatsoever. A guru facilitates your liberation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
Yes it is. You really have to be trained well and very clear in your own psyche. I've seen some deprogrammers do some serious damage to people by tearing down belief structures simply because they had a need to make others think like themselves. Gotta agree with Dr. Pete on this one. While I admit that some in the counseling profession have good intentions and benign motives, this was not always the case. Because the Rama guy was so publicly contro- versial, some parents of students involved with him got freaked out and hired deprogrammers to get their sons and daughters back. The problem was that these deprogrammers were NOT trained in any kind of counseling or psychological techniques, and were in it for the money. (They charged the parents $50,000 to kidnap their kids and deprogram them.) As it turns out (I testified in a court case in which we put a couple of them behind bars) more than a few of them were ex-cons who had gotten into the deprog- ramming business because it WAS a business, and a low- risk business at that. What they did (kidnapping) was illegal, but in the anti-cult mindset of the times, the likelihood of them doing hard time was low. (The two guys we prosecuted got six months each, for kidnapping a young girl and holding her hostage for two weeks.) That matches my understanding of the forceful deprogrammers committing crimes like kidnapping. They were also using some very creepy brainwashing style techniques. Bu the time I had gotten involved there was a strong reaction against these practices. All my sessions were voluntary and the person could walk out at any moment. But like a drug intervention, the family made it clear that financial support would be cut off if they would not at least listen to another POV. Hopefully those anti-cult hysteria days are now behind us, and more of the exit counselors these days are in fact well-intentioned and better trained. But it wasn't always the case. Many of them were motivated by money, and many of the ones who weren't were motivated just as Pete says below, by a need to impose their POV on others, to somehow validate it. I only worked with a small number of them so I can't speak for the whole group. But the ones I worked with were sincere in their desire to restore choice to a person whose belief system had become rigid. It was content free and did not involve instilling a POV. Most people have plenty of their own once they have the choice. It is similar to the dysfunctional family model where a persons role in the family and self-identity becomes so rigid that they can't function in another role, say as NOT the family fuck-up who needs constant rescuing. The cases I was on didn't involve people whose lives were working fine but with a belief system the parent's didn't agree with. We were on cases of people living more like drug addicts whose lives were only sustainable by soaking their parents long into their adulthood. It became a manipulative cycle of dependence. To see a person come to the realization that they have choices for their identity and life was beautiful. But this does not apply to the majority of happy believers whose lives work fine under their own terms and self support skills. Those aren't the kind of people who exit counselors work with even if the family wants to throw money on them to change their kid back to the one they could control. There is a long process that exit counselors go though with the parents before they will take on a case. They turn down many more than they take. Not saying you did this, Curtis, but I saw some former MIU guys do this sort of thing to some vulnerable people. It was all ego on the MIU guys' part. This is one of the reasons I try so hard NOT to try to change people's beliefs on this forum. I don't KNOW The Truth, and have seen far too many people who claimed to, and who did damage to others trying to make *them* know as well. To me, whether the person trying to impose his POV on someone else is part of a cult or trying to get someone out of a cult doesn't really matter -- the bottom line is that they are trying to impose their POV on someone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gotta agree with Dr. Pete on this one. While I admit that some in the counseling profession have good intentions and benign motives, this was not always the case. Because the Rama guy was so publicly contro- versial, some parents of students involved with him got freaked out and hired deprogrammers to get their sons and daughters back. The problem was that these deprogrammers were NOT trained in any kind of counseling or psychological techniques, and were in it for the money. (They charged the parents $50,000 to kidnap their kids and deprogram them.) As it turns out (I testified in a court case in which we put a couple of them behind bars) more than a few of them were ex-cons who had gotten into the deprog- ramming business because it WAS a business, and a low- risk business at that. What they did (kidnapping) was illegal, but in the anti-cult mindset of the times, the likelihood of them doing hard time was low. (The two guys we prosecuted got six months each, for kidnapping a young girl and holding her hostage for two weeks.) That matches my understanding of the forceful deprogrammers committing crimes like kidnapping. They were also using some very creepy brainwashing style techniques. Like forcing their abductees to watch videos from Jonestown 24/7, depriving them of sleep and food, etc. It was pretty icky. And my friend was one of the lucky ones; a Scientologist kid- napped by these same guys claimed to have been raped repeatedly by one of them. You might think, Oh...that's just Scientology bullshit, but the guy in question *was* an ex-con, and what he had done time for was multiple counts of rape. Some credentials for an exit counselor, eh? Bu the time I had gotten involved there was a strong reaction against these practices. All my sessions were voluntary and the person could walk out at any moment. But like a drug intervention, the family made it clear that financial support would be cut off if they would not at least listen to another POV. Just to let you know, that wasn't the case with the Rama students abducted. In the case of the woman I saw grabbed and thrown into a van (and later testified to in court), she *was* involved with the Rama guy, and yeah, one could make a case that it was a cult, but at the same time she was a successful computer consultant on Wall St., making more money than her parents. She was also 30 and well beyond being a minor, and they had her kidnapped anyway. She held out for two weeks, pretending to go along with the deprogramming until the ex-cons who had kidnapped her dropped their guard, and then she made a successful break for it. She was back with the police before they realized she was gone. And these assholes *still* only got six months each. The saddest part in a way is that she has not spoken with her family since. In their over- protective zeal to get her back, they wound up pushing her away forever. She has vowed to not even attend their funerals because of some of the things that were done to her, things that her own parents commissioned and paid for. I understand that it wasn't always like this, and that some of the exit counselors were indeed prin- cipled. I'm just bringing it up to let you know that not all of them were. There was MONEY to be made in the forcible deprogramming business back then, and that attracted the same scum that any illegal activity does that has very little down side if you get caught.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tony Abu-Nader spends most of his time meditating on the Pursha team, I believe. Bevan and Hagelin both are doing what their guru told them was the right thing for them to do. I don't see much difference, as far as justification for their activities, between Invincible America course participants or the TM leadership. L. One thing to lie to yourself. Another thing to lie to yourself and to a lot of other people. Hagelin was trained as a scientist, presents himself as a scientist, but no longer is a scientist. Nader was (is?) an MD and has had scientific training. He was awared his weight in gold for his discovery that the Veda and Vedic Literature, the structure and function of Natural Law which is the managing intelligence of the universe, is at the basis of the human physiology. This isn't science. They use there credentials to promote their beliefs. Their beliefs probably are sincere, I have no reason not to think so, but I don't respect them at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--right on...not even following in the footsteps of Guru Dev. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Tony Abu-Nader spends most of his time meditating on the Pursha team, I believe. Bevan and Hagelin both are doing what their guru told them was the right thing for them to do. I don't see much difference, as far as justification for their activities, between Invincible America course participants or the TM leadership. L. One thing to lie to yourself. Another thing to lie to yourself and to a lot of other people. Hagelin was trained as a scientist, presents himself as a scientist, but no longer is a scientist. Nader was (is?) an MD and has had scientific training. He was awared his weight in gold for his discovery that the Veda and Vedic Literature, the structure and function of Natural Law which is the managing intelligence of the universe, is at the basis of the human physiology. This isn't science. They use there credentials to promote their beliefs. Their beliefs probably are sincere, I have no reason not to think so, but I don't respect them at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, many years ago when I was an MIU student I read this novel and that exact same paragraph jumped out at me and helped me understand what was wrong with MMY and the TMO. Fascinating synchronicity. It was the idea of the lived reality over the actual lived reality. Exactly. And a lack of respect for the lived reality. Carl Jung also spoke about this after he visited the USA and spoke with some Navajo elders. These elders told him that the White man thought up here and pointed to their head instead of thinking here, pointing to their heart. Jung saw it as the neurosis of modern man. Lost in a world of idealized concepts that destroy the lived reality of those very same concepts. Yup. It's a fascinating summer re-read for me, going back and reading Philip K. Dick 40 years after I last read him. As Brian Aldiss said, the fascinating thing is that if you reread some of the writers who were more famous than PKD at the time, like Heinlein and Clarke and Asimov, today their writings seem dated and cliched. But when you read Philip today, it feels as if he is describing today. In fact, he's still ahead of us. His fellow writers loved him because, even though he had many Class-A spiritual experiences himself, he never lowered himself to searching out some already-written dogma or spiritual trip to explain them. He preferred to just deal with his own experiences and try to figure them out as best he could, without trying to turn them into either dogma or prosyletyzing. Since that's pretty much my approach at this point in my life, it's fascinating to rediscover a kindred soul who was doing this same thing back in the days when I'd already settled for the prepackaged explanations provided by Maharishi and the TMO. And now, over 40 years later, I pick up his book and find that he was ahead of me then, and still is now. It's a humbling experience, but the good kind of humbling. --- On Tue, 7/1/08, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 4:49 AM Yesterday evening I had dinner in Barcelona with some friends, and then caught the last train back to Sitges. So there I was, at midnight, sitting on a Spanish train rereading Philip K. Dick's Hugo Award-winning novel The Man in the High Castle, and I got to thinking how much of what he was saying in it reminded me of FFL, and some of the things said here. The novel is an alternative future, in which Germany and Japan won World War II, and so there are some musings in it about the German character and the German mentality. You know them -- the ones that drove them to eradicate Jews and other non-Aryans and try to rule the world and make it over into the idealized image they had of it in their minds, the image they assumed came from God, and that came only to them, because they alone were godly. Then I got home and spent a few minutes scanning FFL, and watching Off melt down and find a reason to condemn almost everyone in the universe except himself, and find ways to excuse Maharishi for backing insane dictators. I saw him claim that Maharishi had said that Hitler was near enlight- enment, and remembered hearing Maharishi saying that myself. Then I thought about Judy and some of the other TM TBs on this forum, and the kinds of things they say about their fellow seekers and their fellow man, as if they didn't really CONSIDER these other people their fellow man, but something *lesser*, something foul and in the way of the realization of their greater vision for what the world could be. And then I read Dick Mays' mindless reposting of the latest mindless blurb about Vastu, and Doug's mindful satire about the Global Committee for Safety and Purity of the Teaching, Vigilantes for the Age of Enlightenment, and remembered the times in the TM movement when such things were NOT satire, but everyday reality. And then I read some more of Off's meltdown, and rants by other people who still believe, after all these years, that they can control the weather and stock markets and, basically, control all of the things they don't like in the world just by *willing* the things they don't like to just GO AWAY, and I sat amazed at the levels of insanity I was reading, and shook my head and decided to go to bed. But then I decided to reread one last passage from PKD before drifting off to sleep. In it, he has one of his characters ponder the mentality of the Germans who started World War II (and who, in this novel, won it, and shortly thereafter exterminated not only the Jews, but pretty much anyone else on the planet they felt superior to, including
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. A long time ago I gave a lecture on TM and the ME to some bright young people and one of them jumped down my throat at the suggestion that people should have the power to control others through thought alone. At the time I couldn't see his problem. Surely if we're doing good it's OK. But now I know better, it's not OK because it poisons the minds of the people who think they have a right to control other people without their consent. In stark terms there are two ways to get your ideas across to other people. (1) you sit down with them, discuss, reason, argue, and lead them to your point of view, or have your own point of view changed in the process. (2) You bash them over the head until they do as you tell them. Maharishi started out with (1) but ended up at (2). It doesn't matter that mass YF doesn't involve actual blood letting, simply the belief that it's not necessary to put up a decent argument and that it's possible to use force of some kind is evil dressed up as good intentions. You diminish the audience into the ranks of untermenschen to be controlled. Their opinions are worthless, subhuman. The instant the idea snuck in that it would be possible to dominate lesser beings by a magical force, the language, the command structure, the whole demeanor of the TMO became that of a military organisation intent on world domination. The very idea that an elite group of people should dominate lesser beings is inherently military and opposed to peace. Look around you, every institutionalized nastiness in the movement can be traced back to the belief in a right to overcome others by force, for their own good of course, it always is. Look at the architecture, Towers of Invincibility (with hoards of orcs slaving in the dungeons no doubt). Look that the literature, listen to the songs Victory before War. Look at the faces of Bevan and others when faced with a hostile audience in Berlin. They're not thinking how can we explain things more clearly? they're thinking how can we raise coherence to overcome them?. It's an attitude that's not very different to open fire!. The German audience sensed that because they've seen it before. They saw something in the panel that the panel couldn't see in themselves. That idea of using a magical force in place of rational discussion is the sweetly seductive poison that killed the movement. It's just as well it's a false idea.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
A bash-the-TMO-as-Nazis fest seems to have broken out here this morning. Guyfawkes, when you say military organization, I think you mean political. I see no guns. Also, I'm unconvinced by your application of the Nazi-evoking words untermenschen and subhuman to TMO attitudes to people. I think that's over the top by several miles. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. A long time ago I gave a lecture on TM and the ME to some bright young people and one of them jumped down my throat at the suggestion that people should have the power to control others through thought alone. At the time I couldn't see his problem. Surely if we're doing good it's OK. But now I know better, it's not OK because it poisons the minds of the people who think they have a right to control other people without their consent. In stark terms there are two ways to get your ideas across to other people. (1) you sit down with them, discuss, reason, argue, and lead them to your point of view, or have your own point of view changed in the process. (2) You bash them over the head until they do as you tell them. Maharishi started out with (1) but ended up at (2). It doesn't matter that mass YF doesn't involve actual blood letting, simply the belief that it's not necessary to put up a decent argument and that it's possible to use force of some kind is evil dressed up as good intentions. You diminish the audience into the ranks of untermenschen to be controlled. Their opinions are worthless, subhuman. The instant the idea snuck in that it would be possible to dominate lesser beings by a magical force, the language, the command structure, the whole demeanor of the TMO became that of a military organisation intent on world domination. The very idea that an elite group of people should dominate lesser beings is inherently military and opposed to peace. Look around you, every institutionalized nastiness in the movement can be traced back to the belief in a right to overcome others by force, for their own good of course, it always is. Look at the architecture, Towers of Invincibility (with hoards of orcs slaving in the dungeons no doubt). Look that the literature, listen to the songs Victory before War. Look at the faces of Bevan and others when faced with a hostile audience in Berlin. They're not thinking how can we explain things more clearly? they're thinking how can we raise coherence to overcome them?. It's an attitude that's not very different to open fire!. The German audience sensed that because they've seen it before. They saw something in the panel that the panel couldn't see in themselves. That idea of using a magical force in place of rational discussion is the sweetly seductive poison that killed the movement. It's just as well it's a false idea.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A bash-the-TMO-as-Nazis fest seems to have broken out here this morning. Guyfawkes, when you say military organization, I think you mean political. I see no guns. Also, I'm unconvinced by your application of the Nazi-evoking words untermenschen and subhuman to TMO attitudes to people. I think that's over the top by several miles. You obviously weren't following Nablus' tirades last week. Nothing could possibly be more uber- mensch than his attitude towards those who do not toe the TM party line. And, he was very clear about what should happen to these lowlives or vampires, as he called them. According to him, Nature will wipe them out, destroy them. And soon. The thing is, the *Nazis* were slackers compared to TM TBs like Nabby. Even though the Nazis were fascinated by magical thinking, they didn't trust in it enough to rely on magic as their only way of taking over the world. They had to use brute force. TM TBs like Nabby believe in magic, so they rely on magic. But when you listen to them rant, you find that they have the same goal as the Nazis (to take over the world and shape it to their idea of an ideal society), they have the same enemies as the Nazis (those who don't agree with them or live the way they think people should), and they have the same final solution in mind for these enemies (eliminate them). TM TBs like Nabby just believe that if they bounce on their butts enough and pay for enough pundits and yagyas, the gods and devas will do all the dirty work FOR THEM, and they won't have to get their own hands dirty. In other words, TM TBs like Nabby are the more highly-evolved form of Nazis -- they do less and hope to accomplish more. But more of the same old same old. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 guyfawkes91@ wrote: And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. A long time ago I gave a lecture on TM and the ME to some bright young people and one of them jumped down my throat at the suggestion that people should have the power to control others through thought alone. At the time I couldn't see his problem. Surely if we're doing good it's OK. But now I know better, it's not OK because it poisons the minds of the people who think they have a right to control other people without their consent. In stark terms there are two ways to get your ideas across to other people. (1) you sit down with them, discuss, reason, argue, and lead them to your point of view, or have your own point of view changed in the process. (2) You bash them over the head until they do as you tell them. Maharishi started out with (1) but ended up at (2). It doesn't matter that mass YF doesn't involve actual blood letting, simply the belief that it's not necessary to put up a decent argument and that it's possible to use force of some kind is evil dressed up as good intentions. You diminish the audience into the ranks of untermenschen to be controlled. Their opinions are worthless, subhuman. The instant the idea snuck in that it would be possible to dominate lesser beings by a magical force, the language, the command structure, the whole demeanor of the TMO became that of a military organisation intent on world domination. The very idea that an elite group of people should dominate lesser beings is inherently military and opposed to peace. Look around you, every institutionalized nastiness in the movement can be traced back to the belief in a right to overcome others by force, for their own good of course, it always is. Look at the architecture, Towers of Invincibility (with hoards of orcs slaving in the dungeons no doubt). Look that the literature, listen to the songs Victory before War. Look at the faces of Bevan and others when faced with a hostile audience in Berlin. They're not thinking how can we explain things more clearly? they're thinking how can we raise coherence to overcome them?. It's an attitude that's not very different to open fire!. The German audience sensed that because they've seen it before. They saw something in the panel that the panel couldn't see in themselves. That idea of using a magical force in place of rational discussion is the sweetly seductive poison that killed the movement. It's just as well it's a false idea.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A bash-the-TMO-as-Nazis fest seems to have broken out here this morning. Guyfawkes, when you say military organization, I think you mean political. I see no guns. Also, I'm unconvinced by your application of the Nazi-evoking words untermenschen and subhuman to TMO attitudes to people. I think that's over the top by several miles. Yep, I agree-- by all accounts the TMO is a pretty benign organization. Certainly nothing militant about it. And really no different from any other organization in advancing its agenda. As for the inference that they are superior to others, I think all organizations operate that way, whether stated openly or not-- it is partially what keeps them cohesive, and when we're talking about saving souls, the perceived superiority gets pretty comprehensive.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
A bash-the-TMO-as-Nazis fest seems to have broken out here this morning. Guyfawkes, when you say military organization, I think you mean political. I see no guns. Also, I'm unconvinced by your application of the Nazi-evoking words untermenschen and subhuman to TMO attitudes to people. I think that's over the top by several miles. Nope, I used the word military because that's exactly what I meant. Political organizations think in terms of convincing people, maybe by dubious means, maybe by emotion rather than reason but they're still thinking in terms of opening a dialog with the outside world, reaching out and convincing people. Military organizations don't have such girlie ideas, they think in terms of let's kick ass and blast the fuckers to kingdom come. The TMO used to think in terms of having a dialog with the rest of the world and there are still traces of that. But mostly it thinks in terms of let's kick ass and blast the fuckers into Sat Yuga with group coherence. People are pumping millions into weapons development in the form of pundits and super-advanced technologies of the unified field. Scarcely a single cent is being spent on building up academic credibility and a good name in society. In fact the TMO has thrown away most of it's credibility because it was thought to be for sissies and the low life who worry about public appearances, factual accuracy and logical consistency. Ethics? Ha! you're so un-evolved, we don't need ethics we've got pundits! Why waste time on such boring things as ethical behavior and reasoned argument when we can just blast people with pundits chanting. People don't think in terms of how to communicate properly or how to put up a reasoned argument. They think in terms of Super-radiance numbers. There's a very direct interpretation of Super-radiance numbers as mega-coherence units and blast radii and that makes it very transparent what the mode of thinking is. Already we're hearing talk of collateral damage. People are telling themselves that if others can't behave as prescribed by the TMO then it's right that they should have their homes flooded by mother nature. Even though there's no relation between the weather and super-radiance people who believe there is think that wrecking people's lives is worth it for the sake of conquest by a higher force. That is military thinking. The TMO is a military organization. Just because they don't use physical weapons doesn't mean they're thinking in political terms. The command structure, the power plays, the buildings, the language, everything right down the the paranoia about secret agents is military. If someone was introduced as General Gordon of the Invincibility Forces of Iowa no one in the TMO would bat an eyelid, the role would slot right in to the existing structure. It's such a subtle thing that most people haven't realized it's happened. Once we were an educational organization dedicated to spreading ideas through dialog and discussion. But we aren't anymore, now the goal is conquest without discussion. That is military thinking. It's a good idea poisoned by the essence of evil, the belief that one group has a right to dominate everyone else without asking them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, many years ago when I was an MIU student I read this novel and that exact same paragraph jumped out at me and helped me understand what was wrong with MMY and the TMO. It was the idea of the lived reality over the actual lived reality. Carl Jung also spoke about this after he visited the USA and spoke with some Navajo elders. These elders told him that the White man thought up here and pointed to their head instead of thinking here, pointing to their heart. Jung saw it as the neurosis of modern man. Lost in a world of idealized concepts that destroy the lived reality of those very same concepts. so lemme get this straight, this guy made up a story about the dangers of living inside your head...by living inside his head. An entire book written...by living inside his head...on the dangers of living inside your head.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip It's a good idea poisoned by the essence of evil, the belief that one group has a right to dominate everyone else without asking them. I thought evil needed to actually have an influence to be considered evil-- Why not let the techniques continue and see what happens? So what if a few folks think this result or that result have occurred? Until someone literally puts a gun to my head, I am not concerned in the least-- IME, the whole of nature has never conspired against a group of people identified by another group of people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought evil needed to actually have an influence to be considered evil-- Why not let the techniques continue and see what happens? Right Jim, why not see what happens. If TM theory is right - blame the laws of nature for it - because then it would work that way without INTENTION. If its wrong, as you seem to think - why getting all paranoid? Or are they worried about what they (the Tmers) THINK? Well, then its 1 finger pointing to them and 3 pointing back - because they (Turq, etc) obviously want to change their (TMers) thinking. In either way this discussion doesn't make much sense. So what if a few folks think this result or that result have occurred? Until someone literally puts a gun to my head, I am not concerned in the least-- IME, the whole of nature has never conspired against a group of people identified by another group of people. Its so absurd, because you then would have to apply it equally to anyone praying for peace - s/he wants to change the minds of people without 'discussing'. It seems that CHANGING MINDS is only allowed as an intellectual, rational activity. In my experience this is never what happens. This is like the mind saying: There is nothing beyond me. In fact its the perversity of the mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: I thought evil needed to actually have an influence to be considered evil-- Why not let the techniques continue and see what happens? Right Jim, why not see what happens. If TM theory is right - blame the laws of nature for it - because then it would work that way without INTENTION. If its wrong, as you seem to think - why getting all paranoid? I personally think the TM theory is correct, though also non- quantifiable, nor provable, at least scientifically, so there we are. Or are they worried about what they (the Tmers) THINK? Well, then its 1 finger pointing to them and 3 pointing back - because they (Turq, etc) obviously want to change their (TMers) thinking. In either way this discussion doesn't make much sense. So what if a few folks think this result or that result have occurred? Until someone literally puts a gun to my head, I am not concerned in the least-- IME, the whole of nature has never conspired against a group of people identified by another group of people. Its so absurd, because you then would have to apply it equally to anyone praying for peace - s/he wants to change the minds of people without 'discussing'. It seems that CHANGING MINDS is only allowed as an intellectual, rational activity. In my experience this is never what happens. This is like the mind saying: There is nothing beyond me. In fact its the perversity of the mind. Agreed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I personally think the TM theory is correct, though also non- quantifiable, nor provable, at least scientifically, so there we are. Actually I didn't mean you, but THEM. I realized my mistake right after. :-) To continue: I have experienced how saints can change your mind - without discussion or anything. They can actually change the way you think and feel about things and change the structure of your samskaras. Of course they do this when you have surrendered. Mother Meera says this in her book: I also change the will and character of people' (The Mother, p44; she says this after a reflection how God changed her will to stay permanently with him.) All phenomenon of Shakti-path and initiation can be seen in this way, as the are non-verbal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
May I suggest that you look up the word military in the dictionary since you appear to be somewhat confused as to its meaning? As an over-the-top rant, I found this quite entertaining, but it is not to be confused with serious analysis. Your extremism and vehemence tell me more about you than about the TMO. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A bash-the-TMO-as-Nazis fest seems to have broken out here this morning. Guyfawkes, when you say military organization, I think you mean political. I see no guns. Also, I'm unconvinced by your application of the Nazi-evoking words untermenschen and subhuman to TMO attitudes to people. I think that's over the top by several miles. Nope, I used the word military because that's exactly what I meant. Political organizations think in terms of convincing people, maybe by dubious means, maybe by emotion rather than reason but they're still thinking in terms of opening a dialog with the outside world, reaching out and convincing people. Military organizations don't have such girlie ideas, they think in terms of let's kick ass and blast the fuckers to kingdom come. The TMO used to think in terms of having a dialog with the rest of the world and there are still traces of that. But mostly it thinks in terms of let's kick ass and blast the fuckers into Sat Yuga with group coherence. People are pumping millions into weapons development in the form of pundits and super-advanced technologies of the unified field. Scarcely a single cent is being spent on building up academic credibility and a good name in society. In fact the TMO has thrown away most of it's credibility because it was thought to be for sissies and the low life who worry about public appearances, factual accuracy and logical consistency. Ethics? Ha! you're so un-evolved, we don't need ethics we've got pundits! Why waste time on such boring things as ethical behavior and reasoned argument when we can just blast people with pundits chanting. People don't think in terms of how to communicate properly or how to put up a reasoned argument. They think in terms of Super-radiance numbers. There's a very direct interpretation of Super-radiance numbers as mega-coherence units and blast radii and that makes it very transparent what the mode of thinking is. Already we're hearing talk of collateral damage. People are telling themselves that if others can't behave as prescribed by the TMO then it's right that they should have their homes flooded by mother nature. Even though there's no relation between the weather and super-radiance people who believe there is think that wrecking people's lives is worth it for the sake of conquest by a higher force. That is military thinking. The TMO is a military organization. Just because they don't use physical weapons doesn't mean they're thinking in political terms. The command structure, the power plays, the buildings, the language, everything right down the the paranoia about secret agents is military. If someone was introduced as General Gordon of the Invincibility Forces of Iowa no one in the TMO would bat an eyelid, the role would slot right in to the existing structure. It's such a subtle thing that most people haven't realized it's happened. Once we were an educational organization dedicated to spreading ideas through dialog and discussion. But we aren't anymore, now the goal is conquest without discussion. That is military thinking. It's a good idea poisoned by the essence of evil, the belief that one group has a right to dominate everyone else without asking them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: I thought evil needed to actually have an influence to be considered evil-- Why not let the techniques continue and see what happens? Right Jim, why not see what happens. If TM theory is right - blame the laws of nature for it - because then it would work that way without INTENTION. If its wrong, as you seem to think - why getting all paranoid? Or are they worried about what they (the Tmers) THINK? Well, then its 1 finger pointing to them and 3 pointing back - because they (Turq, etc) obviously want to change their (TMers) thinking. In either way this discussion doesn't make much sense. Michael, Michael, Michael. WHEN are you going to learn? I'm not trying to change what you think. I'm not trying to change what TMers think. I only expressed what *I* think, as I thought it. As far as I can tell, it's YOU who is so challenged and threatened by what I think that you perceive it as an attempt to change what you think. Once more -- I don't CARE what you think. I don't CARE what you believe. What you think and believe has no more meaning or importance in my life than what the flea my dog just scratched off his butt thinks and believes. YOU have no more meaning or importance in my life that that flea. Are we clear now? So what if a few folks think this result or that result have occurred? Until someone literally puts a gun to my head, I am not concerned in the least-- IME, the whole of nature has never conspired against a group of people identified by another group of people. Its so absurd, because you then would have to apply it equally to anyone praying for peace - s/he wants to change the minds of people without 'discussing'. It seems that CHANGING MINDS is only allowed as an intellectual, rational activity. It doesn't MATTER how it is done. It's the belief that it should be done that is questionable in my view. To believe that you have the right -- or even sadder and sicker, the duty -- to change other people's minds is the problem IMO. To believe that you have the right or the duty to change someone else's mind and get them to believe what you believe, you pretty much have to believe that you are right, that you know The Truth. I don't. I never have, and I never will. ANYTHING I say is my opinion, and my opinion alone. UNLIKE YOU, I do NOT assume that my opinion is correct or right or -- even worse -- The Truth. That's what fanatics believe. If you'd like to believe that you know The Truth, and you'd like to spend your life trying to change the minds of others -- either in words or using magical woo woo -- to make them see and believe The Truth as you perceive it, well...go for it. I hope it makes you happy. But don't expect me to respect you for having so little humility as to spend your life that way. I have more respect for the flea. Me, I've got better things to do than to go around try- ing to get people to believe my opinions. My life is full enough trying to figure out what my opinions ARE, and that's a tough enough task, because those opinions change from day to day, and sometimes even faster. PLEASE stop with this You're trying to change my mind paranoia. I'm not. Even though it sure sounds to me as if yours could use a change. It's been spouting the same old paranoia for some time now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: I personally think the TM theory is correct, though also non- quantifiable, nor provable, at least scientifically, so there we are. Actually I didn't mean you, but THEM. I realized my mistake right after. :-) To continue: I have experienced how saints can change your mind - without discussion or anything. They can actually change the way you think and feel about things and change the structure of your samskaras. Of course they do this when you have surrendered. Yes, I have not analyzed the result to such a degree, but have experienced it countless times. Funnily enough, it took me years before I could follow a talk by Maharishi without losing my train of thought in the middle of what he was saying. Also happens to a lesser degree from any strong sensory experience-- walking into a perfumed scent, for example. Mother Meera says this in her book: I also change the will and character of people' (The Mother, p44; she says this after a reflection how God changed her will to stay permanently with him.) All phenomenon of Shakti-path and initiation can be seen in this way, as the are non-verbal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought evil needed to actually have an influence to be considered evil-- Why not let the techniques continue and see what happens? So what if a few folks think this result or that result have occurred? Until someone literally puts a gun to my head, I am not concerned in the least-- IME, the whole of nature has never conspired against a group of people identified by another group of people. It would be fine if it was just the technique. But it is the way it is sold and all the rest of the kaboodle is sold. To repeat part of the quote from Dick's novel: They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. They are overcome by some archtype; their egos have expanded psychotically so that they cannot tell where they begin and the godhead leaves off. It is not hubris, not pride; it is the inflation of the ego to its ultimate -- confusion between him who worships and that which is worshipped. This is the narcissism that is so prevalent in MMY and the TMO. So, if you are godlike, you cannot err. So if you lie, it must be ok if you believe is good for the hoi polloi. End result, I cannot trust a word the TMO says. When I hear people like Hagelin talk, I see that he is overcome by some archtype. He has gone so far off the edge that I cannot trust him at all, not one little bit, as a scientist. This attitude has hurt people. People become so convinced of their godness that they think they have magic powers. I know a TB who believes that she will eventually no longer suffer from a chronic illness and forgoes western medical care. Now people may say: no one said she should go without medical care. True, but there is such a strong belief in some TBs that they will rule nature that they see no need for western care and they distrust it. I have seen another TB I know make investment decisions based upon how many people were meditating in Fairfield. Thanks Turq for the wonderful post.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Once more -- I don't CARE what you think. I don't CARE what you believe. What you think and believe has no more meaning or importance in my life than what the flea my dog just scratched off his butt thinks and believes. YOU have no more meaning or importance in my life that that flea. Really? Then why are you here? Why have you been talking about this stuff for years? All of you are more important to me than a flea. On this site, I might or might not try to change someone's mind. I might be looking for information. I might simply be curious about how others think. I am here because I do care what people think.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq, many years ago when I was an MIU student I read this novel and that exact same paragraph jumped out at me and helped me understand what was wrong with MMY and the TMO. It was the idea of the lived reality over the actual lived reality. Carl Jung also spoke about this after he visited the USA and spoke with some Navajo elders. These elders told him that the White man thought up here and pointed to their head instead of thinking here, pointing to their heart. Jung saw it as the neurosis of modern man. Lost in a world of idealized concepts that destroy the lived reality of those very same concepts. So, what did you do next?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip So what if a few folks think this result or that result have occurred? Until someone literally puts a gun to my head, I am not concerned in the least-- IME, the whole of nature has never conspired against a group of people identified by another group of people. Its so absurd, because you then would have to apply it equally to anyone praying for peace - s/he wants to change the minds of people without 'discussing'. It seems that CHANGING MINDS is only allowed as an intellectual, rational activity. In my experience this is never what happens. This is like the mind saying: There is nothing beyond me. In fact its the perversity of the mind. It would be egotistical of me to judge people giving their lives to what I might find to be pointless spiritual pursuits. The cloistered nuns in prayer.Monks meditating their lives away. The Tm'ers on the Invincible America course. But when they are friends or relatives I can worry about them if they aren't taking care of themselves. Much better than pimping the pursuit as science, or the one and true way. I have much more respect for the siddha going to the domes everyday on the Invincible America program than I do of Nader, Bevan, Haglin, et. al.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: I thought evil needed to actually have an influence to be considered evil-- Why not let the techniques continue and see what happens? So what if a few folks think this result or that result have occurred? Until someone literally puts a gun to my head, I am not concerned in the least-- IME, the whole of nature has never conspired against a group of people identified by another group of people. It would be fine if it was just the technique. But it is the way it is sold and all the rest of the kaboodle is sold. To repeat part of the quote from Dick's novel: They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. They are overcome by some archtype; their egos have expanded psychotically so that they cannot tell where they begin and the godhead leaves off. It is not hubris, not pride; it is the inflation of the ego to its ultimate -- confusion between him who worships and that which is worshipped. This is the narcissism that is so prevalent in MMY and the TMO. So, if you are godlike, you cannot err. So if you lie, it must be ok if you believe is good for the hoi polloi. End result, I cannot trust a word the TMO says. When I hear people like Hagelin talk, I see that he is overcome by some archtype. He has gone so far off the edge that I cannot trust him at all, not one little bit, as a scientist. This attitude has hurt people. People become so convinced of their godness that they think they have magic powers. I know a TB who believes that she will eventually no longer suffer from a chronic illness and forgoes western medical care. Now people may say: no one said she should go without medical care. True, but there is such a strong belief in some TBs that they will rule nature that they see no need for western care and they distrust it. I have seen another TB I know make investment decisions based upon how many people were meditating in Fairfield. Thanks Turq for the wonderful post. I indulged in magical thinking at one point in my life-- nothing wrong with it, since experience teaches the practitioner *very quickly* whether or not it works. So wtf, let the folks who want to do it, do it. What deal is it of yours, or Turq's anyway? Life is a process of learning, and that includes f*cking up big time on occasion, imo. Have you ever not done something just because someone told you not to? I haven't; either it just felt so wrong I couldn't do it, like killing someone, or I tried it anyway and took the consequences, like burning my finger with a match.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Once more -- I don't CARE what you think. I don't CARE what you believe. What you think and believe has no more meaning or importance in my life than what the flea my dog just scratched off his butt thinks and believes. YOU have no more meaning or importance in my life that that flea. Really? Then why are you here? Why have you been talking about this stuff for years? Because I seem to have no choice but to think about this stuff, and this place gives me a place to think about it onscreen, and get feedback. The feedback causes more thinking, etc. But it really isn't to convince anyone of anything, merely to play with ideas. All of you are more important to me than a flea. On this site, I might or might not try to change someone's mind. I might be looking for information. I might simply be curious about how others think. I am here because I do care what people think. Cool. I don't. As I said, I'm trying to figure out what I think.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What deal is it of yours, or Turq's anyway? Life is a process of learning, and that includes f*cking up big time on occasion, imo. Good and fair question! Yes, life is a process of learning and we learn when we err. But we also are pained when those we care about make what we think is a terrible mistake. But yes, unless they are incompetent they will make their mistakes. So, why do I care? Back in the early 1970s my friends and I learned TM. I really pumped it up. Oddly, all these friends ended up siddhas except for me. Some ended up TBs, one is the woman I mentioned before who has an illness and won't except treatment that would make her life much easier. It isn't like she is going to die of the illness, but she has symptoms that could be controlled which would make her life better (in my mind). So I think about her and the others I knew back then, like my first husband, who also turned into a TB. Neither seem happy. They are not bliss ninnies. And as you say, life is a process of learning and I am here to learn. Have you ever not done something just because someone told you not to? I haven't; either it just felt so wrong I couldn't do it, like killing someone, or I tried it anyway and took the consequences, like burning my finger with a match. Oh yes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Once more -- I don't CARE what you think. I don't CARE what you believe. What you think and believe has no more meaning or importance in my life than what the flea my dog just scratched off his butt thinks and believes. YOU have no more meaning or importance in my life that that flea. Really? Then why are you here? Why have you been talking about this stuff for years? Because I seem to have no choice but to think about this stuff, and this place gives me a place to think about it onscreen, and get feedback. The feedback causes more thinking, etc. But it really isn't to convince anyone of anything, merely to play with ideas. All of you are more important to me than a flea. On this site, I might or might not try to change someone's mind. I might be looking for information. I might simply be curious about how others think. I am here because I do care what people think. Cool. I don't. As I said, I'm trying to figure out what I think. Fair enough. I think I care what people think because I truly want to change how certain people think. Hopeless endeavor, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
Fair enough. I think I care what people think because I truly want to change how certain people think. Hopeless endeavor, eh? Just typing out my own perspective seems like a lower but achievable bar for me. It often comes out of the juxtaposition with someone else's post. I never have enough info on people here to understand what their beliefs mean to their happiness and sanity to assume that they need to change theirs. Even when I consider some POVs as completely fucking nuts! People hold beliefs for so many psychological reasons that the epistemological solidity of a position is often irrelevant to the humanistic relevance. That comes off as somewhat condescending, but I'm sure many view my own beliefs as just as removed from reality. So the playing field is even, we all circle each other with our better perspective. That works for me. I can feel as right as I want as long as I take into account that this is the same perspective everyone else has. It connects me to people who I totally disagree with. We are both humans enjoying being right. While unable to understand how full of shit we are in our blind spots! Ain't it grand! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Once more -- I don't CARE what you think. I don't CARE what you believe. What you think and believe has no more meaning or importance in my life than what the flea my dog just scratched off his butt thinks and believes. YOU have no more meaning or importance in my life that that flea. Really? Then why are you here? Why have you been talking about this stuff for years? Because I seem to have no choice but to think about this stuff, and this place gives me a place to think about it onscreen, and get feedback. The feedback causes more thinking, etc. But it really isn't to convince anyone of anything, merely to play with ideas. All of you are more important to me than a flea. On this site, I might or might not try to change someone's mind. I might be looking for information. I might simply be curious about how others think. I am here because I do care what people think. Cool. I don't. As I said, I'm trying to figure out what I think. Fair enough. I think I care what people think because I truly want to change how certain people think. Hopeless endeavor, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fair enough. I think I care what people think because I truly want to change how certain people think. Hopeless endeavor, eh? Just typing out my own perspective seems like a lower but achievable bar for me. It often comes out of the juxtaposition with someone else's post. I never have enough info on people here to understand what their beliefs mean to their happiness and sanity to assume that they need to change theirs. Even when I consider some POVs as completely fucking nuts! People hold beliefs for so many psychological reasons that the epistemological solidity of a position is often irrelevant to the humanistic relevance. That comes off as somewhat condescending, but I'm sure many view my own beliefs as just as removed from reality. So the playing field is even, we all circle each other with our better perspective. That works for me. I can feel as right as I want as long as I take into account that this is the same perspective everyone else has. It connects me to people who I totally disagree with. We are both humans enjoying being right. While unable to understand how full of shit we are in our blind spots! Ain't it grand! I don't expect to change how people think here on this forum. I am always hoping to try to find a way to have my TB friends maybe open up to another point of view on certain issues. From my reading here I rather doubt that I will have an effect. And of course, I am here to learn too and figure out where I stand and what I know and don't know. And to get abused a bit along the way!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fair enough. I think I care what people think because I truly want to change how certain people think. Hopeless endeavor, eh? Just typing out my own perspective seems like a lower but achievable bar for me. It often comes out of the juxtaposition with someone else's post. I never have enough info on people here to understand what their beliefs mean to their happiness and sanity to assume that they need to change theirs. Even when I consider some POVs as completely fucking nuts! People hold beliefs for so many psychological reasons that the epistemological solidity of a position is often irrelevant to the humanistic relevance. That comes off as somewhat condescending, but I'm sure many view my own beliefs as just as removed from reality. So the playing field is even, we all circle each other with our better perspective. That works for me. I can feel as right as I want as long as I take into account that this is the same perspective everyone else has. It connects me to people who I totally disagree with. We are both humans enjoying being right. While unable to understand how full of shit we are in our blind spots! Ain't it grand! It's grand and not grand. I think for people here things are pretty much OK and we are all enjoying being right. Except maybe Kirk. Or even Edg. Where are they anyway? I think I want to change my TB friends because they are not happy. I know I don't have that kind of power.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
I think I want to change my TB friends because they are not happy. I know I don't have that kind of power. I guess I'm not close enough to any TBs to care. I'm sure I'd feel as you do if I did. I spent some interesting time helping families get their TB sons and daughters out of the group involvement at a level that was dysfunctional and unsustainable. It was a slow process and took the ability of the family to have an intervention so they would at least stay with it for a day or two before we could get through to buy more days out of their curiosity. It was a fascinating look at the structure of my own TB while in the movement. Like hacking the human belief system operating system. I think you would enjoy hanging out with some of the guys who taught me. They were very sensitive insightful people. In any case it took a lot of prep and about a week to really get anywhere, which is unrealistic for most people. The phobic responses to even hearing the opposite POV are really strong and rooted in the person's identity structure held together by their beliefs. It is no joke to even get close to interacting with that level of a person's identity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Fair enough. I think I care what people think because I truly want to change how certain people think. Hopeless endeavor, eh? Just typing out my own perspective seems like a lower but achievable bar for me. It often comes out of the juxtaposition with someone else's post. I never have enough info on people here to understand what their beliefs mean to their happiness and sanity to assume that they need to change theirs. Even when I consider some POVs as completely fucking nuts! People hold beliefs for so many psychological reasons that the epistemological solidity of a position is often irrelevant to the humanistic relevance. That comes off as somewhat condescending, but I'm sure many view my own beliefs as just as removed from reality. So the playing field is even, we all circle each other with our better perspective. That works for me. I can feel as right as I want as long as I take into account that this is the same perspective everyone else has. It connects me to people who I totally disagree with. We are both humans enjoying being right. While unable to understand how full of shit we are in our blind spots! Ain't it grand! It's grand and not grand. I think for people here things are pretty much OK and we are all enjoying being right. Except maybe Kirk. Or even Edg. Where are they anyway? I think I want to change my TB friends because they are not happy. I know I don't have that kind of power.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I want to change my TB friends because they are not happy. I know I don't have that kind of power. I guess I'm not close enough to any TBs to care. I'm sure I'd feel as you do if I did. I spent some interesting time helping families get their TB sons and daughters out of the group involvement at a level that was dysfunctional and unsustainable. It was a slow process and took the ability of the family to have an intervention so they would at least stay with it for a day or two before we could get through to buy more days out of their curiosity. It was a fascinating look at the structure of my own TB while in the movement. Like hacking the human belief system operating system. I think you would enjoy hanging out with some of the guys who taught me. They were very sensitive insightful people. In any case it took a lot of prep and about a week to really get anywhere, which is unrealistic for most people. The phobic responses to even hearing the opposite POV are really strong and rooted in the person's identity structure held together by their beliefs. It is no joke to even get close to interacting with that level of a person's identity. Oh my. I take it that the TBs were relatively young? And it worked? I rarely discuss belief issues with my TB friends anymore. I had the experience of trying to convince one friend to take a certain course of action and she screamed at me, disowned me (temporarily), and is no less firm in her stance. Now Sandiego and I have very different beliefs but we can have a civil conversation on this forum, and he is one of the few here that always answers my questions. I appreciate that. He also never screams at me. I like that. :) Kisses Sandiego!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- On Tue, 7/1/08, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is no joke to even get close to interacting with that level of a person's identity. Yes it is. You really have to be trained well and very clear in your own psyche. I've seen some deprogrammers do some serious damage to people by tearing down belief structures simply because they had a need to make others think like themselves. Not saying you did this, Curtis, but I saw some former MIU guys do this sort of thing to some vulnerable people. It was all ego on the MIU guys' part. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Fair enough. I think I care what people think because I truly want to change how certain people think. Hopeless endeavor, eh? Just typing out my own perspective seems like a lower but achievable bar for me. It often comes out of the juxtaposition with someone else's post. I never have enough info on people here to understand what their beliefs mean to their happiness and sanity to assume that they need to change theirs. Even when I consider some POVs as completely fucking nuts! People hold beliefs for so many psychological reasons that the epistemological solidity of a position is often irrelevant to the humanistic relevance. That comes off as somewhat condescending, but I'm sure many view my own beliefs as just as removed from reality. So the playing field is even, we all circle each other with our better perspective. That works for me. I can feel as right as I want as long as I take into account that this is the same perspective everyone else has. It connects me to people who I totally disagree with. We are both humans enjoying being right. While unable to understand how full of shit we are in our blind spots! Ain't it grand! It's grand and not grand. I think for people here things are pretty much OK and we are all enjoying being right. Except maybe Kirk. Or even Edg. Where are they anyway? I think I want to change my TB friends because they are not happy. I know I don't have that kind of power. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- On Tue, 7/1/08, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is no joke to even get close to interacting with that level of a person's identity. Yes it is. You really have to be trained well and very clear in your own psyche. I've seen some deprogrammers do some serious damage to people by tearing down belief structures simply because they had a need to make others think like themselves. Not saying you did this, Curtis, but I saw some former MIU guys do this sort of thing to some vulnerable people. It was all ego on the MIU guys' part. I thought this was the difference between deprogramming, which was forceful and involved replacing beliefs systems and exit counseling which had the purpose of restoring choice to a person whose life had become unmanageable with their current belief system. I was trained not to replace any beliefs but to help a person understand that they had choices. This is what can be damaged in a group whose motive is to instill one particular belief system. I had to be very careful not to convey my own lack of religious orientation after leaving TM so the person would not see that as the only or best choice. As a mental health professional yourself I'm sure you would have some legitimate criticism of this kind of work. I saw it as an educational rather than a therapeutic function. Letting people understand how group coercion can change beliefs without much conscious participation. Once they understand how that can happen and under what conditions, they can decide for themselves if it applied to their relationship with the movement. But in the end, they might need a lot of the kind of help I was not trained to provide and then it would be up to a professional like yourself to help them gain some more fundamental personality tools. I'm not sure what people from MIU you are talking about. My work was with Pat Ryan and I respected his motives and personal ethics. YMMV. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Fair enough. I think I care what people think because I truly want to change how certain people think. Hopeless endeavor, eh? Just typing out my own perspective seems like a lower but achievable bar for me. It often comes out of the juxtaposition with someone else's post. I never have enough info on people here to understand what their beliefs mean to their happiness and sanity to assume that they need to change theirs. Even when I consider some POVs as completely fucking nuts! People hold beliefs for so many psychological reasons that the epistemological solidity of a position is often irrelevant to the humanistic relevance. That comes off as somewhat condescending, but I'm sure many view my own beliefs as just as removed from reality. So the playing field is even, we all circle each other with our better perspective. That works for me. I can feel as right as I want as long as I take into account that this is the same perspective everyone else has. It connects me to people who I totally disagree with. We are both humans enjoying being right. While unable to understand how full of shit we are in our blind spots! Ain't it grand! It's grand and not grand. I think for people here things are pretty much OK and we are all enjoying being right. Except maybe Kirk. Or even Edg. Where are they anyway? I think I want to change my TB friends because they are not happy. I know I don't have that kind of power. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. A long time ago I gave a lecture on TM and the ME to some bright young people and one of them jumped down my throat at the suggestion that people should have the power to control others through thought alone. At the time I couldn't see his problem. Surely if we're doing good it's OK. But now I know better, it's not OK because it poisons the minds of the people who think they have a right to control other people without their consent. That you had no response to this line of argument only shows problems with your own attitude, not the theory behind the ME. There is no coercion with the Maharishi Effect. The idea is simply that when a large group of people calm themselves with TM,/TM-SIdhis, their calmness has a measurable effect on everyone around them. To call this coercive is like claiming that putting a park in an inner city violates the rights of gang members by providing a calming counter-effect to their anger. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
Oh my. I take it that the TBs were relatively young? And it worked? Not young, but still financially dependent on their families. The exit counsellings I was involved with had good success with educating the people about how groups and beliefs interact. There were often deeper psychological and family issues in play that interfered with simple storybook endings for their lives. For some of them their group involvement was not their biggest problem, although for the family it often seemed like the focus of all problems in the family. It was still such a new developing perspective when I was involved with that work. People in that field are much more competent now. It helped me quite a bit to see how other people had constructed their web of beliefs. It is hard to find people who can discuss ideas without taking it all personally and emotionally. Even harder to find people who can discuss beliefs without becoming combative. When it happens here I feel really great about the interaction. It is worth working at for me. I think it is one of those things that improves with practice. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I think I want to change my TB friends because they are not happy. I know I don't have that kind of power. I guess I'm not close enough to any TBs to care. I'm sure I'd feel as you do if I did. I spent some interesting time helping families get their TB sons and daughters out of the group involvement at a level that was dysfunctional and unsustainable. It was a slow process and took the ability of the family to have an intervention so they would at least stay with it for a day or two before we could get through to buy more days out of their curiosity. It was a fascinating look at the structure of my own TB while in the movement. Like hacking the human belief system operating system. I think you would enjoy hanging out with some of the guys who taught me. They were very sensitive insightful people. In any case it took a lot of prep and about a week to really get anywhere, which is unrealistic for most people. The phobic responses to even hearing the opposite POV are really strong and rooted in the person's identity structure held together by their beliefs. It is no joke to even get close to interacting with that level of a person's identity. Oh my. I take it that the TBs were relatively young? And it worked? I rarely discuss belief issues with my TB friends anymore. I had the experience of trying to convince one friend to take a certain course of action and she screamed at me, disowned me (temporarily), and is no less firm in her stance. Now Sandiego and I have very different beliefs but we can have a civil conversation on this forum, and he is one of the few here that always answers my questions. I appreciate that. He also never screams at me. I like that. :) Kisses Sandiego!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--thx...I agree completely. But taking things a step further, can one go on the offensive and still not incur bad karma due to interferring? Take a benign example, the Lotus Sutra, parable of the burning house. The wise Father tells the kids in a burning house about a gift of candy (or some similar angle) to get them out of the house. MMY mentioned examples in which white lies are OK. But now for a more extreme example of intervention. Take anybody - say an enemy, (if there are any, perhaps Osama Bin Laden). Sending the dude hateful vibes could make things worse. My recommendation - send prayers to Kali for HER to take care of the guy; and then let the chips fall where they may. However, such prayers to Kali are for anybody: friends, enemies, ourselves - so ironically, this method uses the same intervention in other's affairs that we might wish for ourselves. It's an interesting, Dharmic way to intervene in other people's lives without (imo) incurring bad karma. Try ityou'll like it. Take anybody with some unfinished karmic strings connected to you; and then bombard the person with Kali vibes. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, guyfawkes91 guyfawkes91@ wrote: And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. A long time ago I gave a lecture on TM and the ME to some bright young people and one of them jumped down my throat at the suggestion that people should have the power to control others through thought alone. At the time I couldn't see his problem. Surely if we're doing good it's OK. But now I know better, it's not OK because it poisons the minds of the people who think they have a right to control other people without their consent. That you had no response to this line of argument only shows problems with your own attitude, not the theory behind the ME. There is no coercion with the Maharishi Effect. The idea is simply that when a large group of people calm themselves with TM,/TM-SIdhis, their calmness has a measurable effect on everyone around them. To call this coercive is like claiming that putting a park in an inner city violates the rights of gang members by providing a calming counter-effect to their anger. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
(snip) MMY mentioned examples in which white lies are OK. But now for a more extreme example of intervention. Take anybody - say an enemy, (if there are any, perhaps Osama Bin Laden). (snip) First of all, Maharishi came from the military caste in India... So, I think it was his nature to structure things in a systematic way... As far as a tactic for bin Laden: I would suggest a way to go...on that matter: Where he is hidden, make it un-hidden... Bring as much light of consciousness there, in those mountains, so that it well bring to light, where he is, what he is up to, who is protecting him, etc. Bring in the light... We don't convince anyone of anything. Everyone has their own life and their own karmas and lessons. You can't skip steps. So, the military structure and tone of the TM movement is just the way it is. Maharishi liked the Germans protecting him, because they are good at that type of things, and of course 'keeping good records'... So, anyone who is not in tune with the military structure will rebel against anything that has the smell of it. That doesn't mean, you can't learn, go your own way, and stay out of the way of convincing anyone of anything... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael t3rinity@ wrote: snip So what if a few folks think this result or that result have occurred? Until someone literally puts a gun to my head, I am not concerned in the least-- IME, the whole of nature has never conspired against a group of people identified by another group of people. Its so absurd, because you then would have to apply it equally to anyone praying for peace - s/he wants to change the minds of people without 'discussing'. It seems that CHANGING MINDS is only allowed as an intellectual, rational activity. In my experience this is never what happens. This is like the mind saying: There is nothing beyond me. In fact its the perversity of the mind. It would be egotistical of me to judge people giving their lives to what I might find to be pointless spiritual pursuits. The cloistered nuns in prayer.Monks meditating their lives away. The Tm'ers on the Invincible America course. But when they are friends or relatives I can worry about them if they aren't taking care of themselves. Much better than pimping the pursuit as science, or the one and true way. I have much more respect for the siddha going to the domes everyday on the Invincible America program than I do of Nader, Bevan, Haglin, et. al. Tony Abu-Nader spends most of his time meditating on the Pursha team, I believe. Bevan and Hagelin both are doing what their guru told them was the right thing for them to do. I don't see much difference, as far as justification for their activities, between Invincible America course participants or the TM leadership. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) MMY mentioned examples in which white lies are OK. But now for a more extreme example of intervention. Take anybody - say an enemy, (if there are any, perhaps Osama Bin Laden). (snip) First of all, Maharishi came from the military caste in India... So, I think it was his nature to structure things in a systematic way... As far as a tactic for bin Laden: I would suggest a way to go...on that matter: Where he is hidden, make it un-hidden... Bring as much light of consciousness there, in those mountains, so that it well bring to light, where he is, what he is up to, who is protecting him, etc. Bring in the light... We don't convince anyone of anything. Everyone has their own life and their own karmas and lessons. You can't skip steps. So, the military structure and tone of the TM movement is just the way it is. Maharishi liked the Germans protecting him, because they are good at that type of things, and of course 'keeping good records'... So, anyone who is not in tune with the military structure will rebel against anything that has the smell of it. That doesn't mean, you can't learn, go your own way, and stay out of the way of convincing anyone of anything... R.G. For what it is worth, the den mother of the TM center in TUcson, said she and all her friends were appalled that MMY kept the Hitler Youth TMers around him. One day, she had a chance to talk to him privately and asked Maharishi, do you really like these guys? Is that why you keep them so close? His response was: Heavens no! I'm just keeping an eye on them. If you think about it, whn MMY really likes someone, be it Bevan or Hagelin or Chopra or whomever, he sends them off on missions that last for months or even years and they only periodically check back with him, so this story actually has a ring of truth to it. Lawson
