[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[authfriend]

Robin--many thanks for a fascinating response. I'll be
back to you shortly, but I'll need a little time to
ponder.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > 
> > > Note that GMH is not saying one's small self becomes the
> > > large Self of God. He is saying that just as Christ was

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[Ravi Yogi]

Oh no not that Omnisubjective crap again Robin..

Purity of first person ontology - YES
Omnisubjectivity - BS

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/292128

More like multi-subjective, multi-exclusive-subjectivity.


On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:02 PM, maskedzebra  wrote:

> Yifu:
> 
> I do read your posts—and enjoy particularly the art you select out from the 
> Internet as commentary on various posts. They seem well-chosen to me.
> 
> But as for your more philosophic-theologic posts, I think I just can't stay 
> with you here. I once did attempt to fuse East and West, but now, having 
> separated them out—not just intellectually (vide Thomas Aquinas) but 
> psychologically (the seemingly retrogressive evolutionary act of returning to 
> 'ignorance' after lighting it up as the enlightened man,—I have very firm and 
> precise criteria for sustaining what I believe to be mutually incompatible 
> readings of reality.
> 
> Buddhism or Hinduism—or for that matter, Islam (which Hilaire Belloc deemed a 
> classic form of heresy)—always end up revealing—no matter how ingenious the 
> attempt to make them seem friendly to Catholicism—how secretly opposed they 
> are to the truth contained in the fact of the Incarnation. The fanatical and 
> punctilious care the Church Fathers—and the Vatican—took to insure 
> Catholicism was always the same—always (up until recently when the trend is 
> in the reverse direction) making finer and finer distinctions as the Church 
> faced the multitude of heresies and heresiarchs—has always impressed me, not 
> as an act of intolerance, but as evidence of just how important it was for 
> the Holy Ghost to keep the Church absolutely faithful to Christ; this so that 
> the Church could be efficacious in the business of the salvation of souls. 
> There is—or was—nothing eclectic about Roman Catholicism; it is seamless and 
> unified. And remained so for almost two thousand years.
> 
> From all that I have read, I have yet to come across a single instance where 
> anything any saint said corresponded to the essence of the Eastern truth: The 
> Self is ultimate reality and the self of the human being is but a 
> manifestation of this same self. In fact I always intuit that true 
> Catholicism was hyper-sensitive and hyper-alert to any kind of admixture with 
> anything else but itself, including all forms of Protestantism.
> 
> So, then, Yifu, when you bring in Hindu saints—or even Padre Pio [who is an 
> extremely problematic figure for me—no matter how much the Church has decided 
> in his favour: there is a violence there which I cannot feel is consistent 
> with sainthood—but he did all his performances after Monte Cassino—and it is 
> simply the case that the Church, since then has not produced a single 
> saint—there are no exceptions to this]—anyhow, Yifu, when you present me with 
> this cross-pollination of East and West, I become a dogmatist—since I have 
> been right inside the truth of the East and therefore have almost a sixth 
> sense for what it is. And as a dogmatist who has experienced the East to the 
> nth degree personally, and who has studied Catholicism in depth through 
> Aquinas, through the Saints, through the history of the Church, I am not 
> amenable to being persuaded that some of the things you say here and 
> elsewhere could ever be true for me.
> 
> As for God's omnisubjectivity, that may have at times been communicated via 
> the Saints (so they could read the soul of a supplicant), but it remains 
> absolutely convincing to me—in as definitive a way as to say God is 
> omniscient [we are of course talking about the Personal God here: the Holy 
> Trinity); and it is the most (for me at least) revealing and significant 
> attribute of God that I can conceive of—along with the truth of his being a 
> creator.
> 
> I must, then, Yifu, persist in my "delusional fantasy". This will tend to 
> make us see things very differently, but that will not and does not stop me 
> from appreciating what you write, and even what you write here. And of course 
> the marvellous often grotesque pictures you track down on the Internet. If 
> you like, you can just say that I am here confessing the limitations I have 
> imposed upon myself. You will realize that I must not turn in the direction 
> of the East, or I might just fall off the wagon.
> 
> I am glad you enjoyed my last post to Judy. She actually, as you must know 
> from having read that post, freed me from a prejudice. I find that 
> remarkable. But in my reading of her anyway, she tracks the truth as she sees 
> it, so if you are willing to obey her rules of discourse (logic, consistency, 
> clarity, sincerity) you can benefit from what she writes.
> 
> I am one to get the essentials, Yifu; God is very simple being. He is a 
> person and he created me, and he would have to possess the attribute of 
> omnisubjectivity—because when I come before him at my death, it would be 
> stupid of him to act as if he ha

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[whynotnow7]

I simply don't find any problem with experiencing myself as everything and 
everything as Oneness, but that isn't inconsistent with seeing everything as 
the creation of a personal God either. It could be called a paradox, or it 
could be called the way things really are, a dual perspective, so that no 
matter how deeply we focus in on something we don't get lost in identification 
with it - sound familiar? heh. 

Going by what Maharishi writes about time in the BG, even the Divine Mother, 
the creator of all the gods, has a finite lifetime. So to go along with that, 
it could be said that even Mother Divine's lifetime is shorter than ours. We 
are, ultimately, Oneness.

However, in daily life we obviously act within the boundaries of time and 
space, while our awareness is tethered securely in the infinite Oneness. Its 
like the CC model, where silence pervades activity. In terms of the three basic 
SOC, waking, dreaming, sleeping, that is a paradox, but in terms of CC it is 
not.

Same thing with God. God is everywhere and everything, but if we want to know 
more about God personally, we have to approach Him personally. It is a natural 
relationship that develops 50/50 once the desire is strong enough to begin to 
manifest. The reward however is far greater than 50%, innumerably.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > 
> > > Note that GMH is not saying one's small self becomes the
> > > large Self of God. He is saying that just as Christ was
> > > both human and divine at the same time, so it is possible
> > > for a human being—under grace—to sense the union of
> > > Christ's divinity with one's own self—*but all the while
> > > preserving this distinction and therefore separateness*.
> > > The personal self of each human being is always what
> > > finally comes to know God. The very idea of extinguishing
> > > this individual self—so that it no longer has its
> > > ontological primacy—is inconceivable—and thus objectively
> > > impossible. Given, that is, God's design and intention
> > > for each person. But perhaps you will want to argue
> > > against this. For me, it is fixed. Which is why I have
> > > become an apostate from the East and all things Maharishi.
> > 
> > 
> > "Fortunate are they who live in Union with God.
> > They are man's guides on earth, furthering the
> > evolution of all creation. They are above the
> > limitations of religion or race. Whether they
> > play with God or hold Him as one with their own
> > Being is a point to be settled between them and
> > God.
> > 
> > "They live as devotees of God or they become
> > united, become one with their Beloved--it is a
> > matter between them. Let it be decided on that
> > level of Union. One view need not exclude the
> > other. It is a sin against God to raise
> > differences over the principle of Union. Let the
> > followers of both schools of thought aspire to
> > achieve their respective goals and then find in
> > that consciousness that the other standpoint is
> > also right at its own level."
> > 
> > --MMY, commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, 6:32
> > 
> > Not to argue with you on this point; I haven't a
> > clue. I just thought it was interesting how directly
> > (and forcefully) MMY had addressed what you just wrote.
> > 
> > I have a personal question to ask you. If you'd rather
> > not answer, no problem, and please forgive me if it
> > seems intrusive.
> > 
> > Is your birthday on or near February 15?
> > 
> > RESPONSE: Nowhere near this date, Judy.
> 
> Robin, I'm very glad to hear that!
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful response to the MMY quote.
> As I say, I haven't a clue, so it's beyond me to argue
> for one or the other "side." I do want to comment on
> why I don't find your argument convincing (IOW, it
> doesn't give me the clue I lack).
> 
> > And by the way, I don't think it makes any sense to say
> > that there is no ultimate difference between 'holding
> > God as one with one's own being' and 'playing with God'
> > as separate from one's own being. There is a kind of
> > seductive paradox here, which defies rational analysis.
> 
> It's been my impression that there's a great deal about
> enlightenment, and particularly Unity, that defies
> rational analysis and remains utterly paradoxical, at
> least based on what mystics (including Western mystics)
> say about it. It makes, er, rational sense to me that
> this would be the case. I can't reject what they say
> simply because it's paradoxical.
> 
> > Does there exist a being who is ontologically distinct
> > from oneself? or is it that one's self is identical to
> > God and therefore there is no ontological difference
> > between God and the one's own self?
> 
> How far does ontology go? Would you assent to the
> proposition that God is "One without a s

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> 
> > Note that GMH is not saying one's small self becomes the
> > large Self of God. He is saying that just as Christ was
> > both human and divine at the same time, so it is possible
> > for a human being—under grace—to sense the union of
> > Christ's divinity with one's own self—*but all the while
> > preserving this distinction and therefore separateness*.
> > The personal self of each human being is always what
> > finally comes to know God. The very idea of extinguishing
> > this individual self—so that it no longer has its
> > ontological primacy—is inconceivable—and thus objectively
> > impossible. Given, that is, God's design and intention
> > for each person. But perhaps you will want to argue
> > against this. For me, it is fixed. Which is why I have
> > become an apostate from the East and all things Maharishi.
> 
> 
> "Fortunate are they who live in Union with God.
> They are man's guides on earth, furthering the
> evolution of all creation. They are above the
> limitations of religion or race. Whether they
> play with God or hold Him as one with their own
> Being is a point to be settled between them and
> God.
> 
> "They live as devotees of God or they become
> united, become one with their Beloved--it is a
> matter between them. Let it be decided on that
> level of Union. One view need not exclude the
> other. It is a sin against God to raise
> differences over the principle of Union. Let the
> followers of both schools of thought aspire to
> achieve their respective goals and then find in
> that consciousness that the other standpoint is
> also right at its own level."
> 
> --MMY, commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, 6:32
> 
> Not to argue with you on this point; I haven't a
> clue. I just thought it was interesting how directly
> (and forcefully) MMY had addressed what you just wrote.
> 
> I have a personal question to ask you. If you'd rather
> not answer, no problem, and please forgive me if it
> seems intrusive.
> 
> Is your birthday on or near February 15?
> 
> RESPONSE: Nowhere near this date, Judy.

Robin, I'm very glad to hear that!

Thanks for your thoughtful response to the MMY quote.
As I say, I haven't a clue, so it's beyond me to argue
for one or the other "side." I do want to comment on
why I don't find your argument convincing (IOW, it
doesn't give me the clue I lack).

> And by the way, I don't think it makes any sense to say
> that there is no ultimate difference between 'holding
> God as one with one's own being' and 'playing with God'
> as separate from one's own being. There is a kind of
> seductive paradox here, which defies rational analysis.

It's been my impression that there's a great deal about
enlightenment, and particularly Unity, that defies
rational analysis and remains utterly paradoxical, at
least based on what mystics (including Western mystics)
say about it. It makes, er, rational sense to me that
this would be the case. I can't reject what they say
simply because it's paradoxical.

> Does there exist a being who is ontologically distinct
> from oneself? or is it that one's self is identical to
> God and therefore there is no ontological difference
> between God and the one's own self?

How far does ontology go? Would you assent to the
proposition that God is "One without a second"?
(Trick question!)

> This is a factual matter, not something that can be expressed
> (and in effect dismissed) in some mystically paradoxical way,
> as if to say both answers are equally true. If it doesn't
> matter whether there is a Personal God who created us, or
> whether we are just a manifestation of the Absolute (and
> therefore *are* the Impersonal God), then what *does* matter?

That strikes me as a rhetorical question. I'm not
sure rhetoric is the proper tool for the discussion.
Matter to whom?
 
> Who possibly could get away with saying this other than
> Maharishi? Can ultimate reality be something that can be 
> experienced in two ways, such as to contradict each other?
> 
> The concepts are mutually exclusive.

On the level of intellectual analysis, certainly. But
on the level of experience?

What was *your* experience in this regard, during
your stint in Unity Consciousness, if I may ask?

> What if someone in learning Maharishi had said this,
> confronted Maharishi with the question: "I have read what
> you say in the Bhagavad-Gita, Maharishi, about the
> Personal versus the Impersonal God. Which is it that
> *you* believe? Is God one's own self, or is God a being
> who is separate from oneself?"
> 
> Maharishi surely would not answer: "You can have it both
> ways; I experience that both are true."
> 
> He would say that at the highest level of consciousness
> the self is experienced to be the Self, and there therefore
> is no distinction between God and one's own being.
> Therefore th

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anartaxius"  wrote:
> >
> > I do not see how it would really be possible to sin
> > against god, since from that point of view there is
> > no opposition.
> 
> From which point of view?

God's point of view.
> 
> In the formulation I quoted, those committing the sin
> would be those who had not achieved the goal of Unity.
> According to the quote, those who had achieved it
> would have recognized both standpoints were "right"
> and therefore would not be inclined to "raise differences
> about the principle of Union."
> 
> > But I will STFU about it.
> 
> Why? Because MMY said you should?

I was just following the advice you wrote in your post:

'His main point is that it's absurd to make an issue of the difference, and he 
points out that anyone who's in a position to make the choice he describes is 
also going to recognize that whatever that 
choice, it isn't somehow "better" or "more right" than the alternative. And 
anybody who *isn't* in that position should just STFU about it.'

[also repeated below in context of the previous couple of posts]


> 
> > That last sentence almost sounds like Barry.
> 
> Cute. Also hostile.

I do not think cute and hostile go together very well, you tend to interpret 
things I would consider as neutral has hostile. That last sentence 'and anybody 
who *isn't* in that position should just STFU about it,' tends to be formatted 
kind of like Barry's when he is taking a jab at you. I just thought it seemed 
'similar'. It felt kind of uncharacteristic of the way I interpret what you say.
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think he's denying distinctions in this quote, but
> > > I don't think he's talking about a hierarchy of levels
> > > either, rather to the contrary. His main point is that it's
> > > absurd to make an issue of the difference, and he points out
> > > that anyone who's in a position to make the choice he
> > > describes is also going to recognize that whatever that
> > > choice, it isn't somehow "better" or "more right" than the alternative. 
> > > And anybody who *isn't* in that position
> > > should just STFU about it.
> > > 
> > > "Sin against God" is pretty strong language for MMY, so
> > > he must have thought it was rather important.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The quotes from Maharishi below were first published in 1963. In later 
> > > > years he seemed to make greater distinctions between GC and UC, and the 
> > > > term BC came up in later years. It makes me wonder what changes in his 
> > > > own experience occurred in the subsequent years. Even here he says the 
> > > > principle of union 'has levels' and does that mean one of those levels 
> > > > is 'higher' or more advanced than the other? He had another 45 years to 
> > > > go. And this was before he switched away from the more religiously 
> > > > oriented language he used in this period. Maharishi obviously had to go 
> > > > through experiences, for after all, he was once just a disciple, like 
> > > > most of us here on the forum.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Note that GMH is not saying one's small self becomes the
> > > > > > large Self of God. He is saying that just as Christ was
> > > > > > both human and divine at the same time, so it is possible
> > > > > > for a human being�under grace�to sense the union of
> > > > > > Christ's divinity with one's own self�*but all the while
> > > > > > preserving this distinction and therefore separateness*.
> > > > > > The personal self of each human being is always what
> > > > > > finally comes to know God. The very idea of extinguishing
> > > > > > this individual self�so that it no longer has its 
> > > > > > ontological primacy�is inconceivable�and thus objectively
> > > > > > impossible. Given, that is, God's design and intention
> > > > > > for each person. But perhaps you will want to argue
> > > > > > against this. For me, it is fixed. Which is why I have
> > > > > > become an apostate from the East and all things Maharishi.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Fortunate are they who live in Union with God.
> > > > > They are man's guides on earth, furthering the
> > > > > evolution of all creation. They are above the
> > > > > limitations of religion or race. Whether they
> > > > > play with God or hold Him as one with their own
> > > > > Being is a point to be settled between them and
> > > > > God.
> > > > > 
> > > > > "They live as devotees of God or they become
> > > > > united, become one with their Beloved--it is a
> > > > > matter between them. Let it be decided on that
> > > > > level of Union. One view need not exclude the
> > > > > other. It

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:

> Note that GMH is not saying one's small self becomes the
> large Self of God. He is saying that just as Christ was
> both human and divine at the same time, so it is possible
> for a human being—under grace—to sense the union of
> Christ's divinity with one's own self—*but all the while
> preserving this distinction and therefore separateness*.
> The personal self of each human being is always what
> finally comes to know God. The very idea of extinguishing
> this individual self—so that it no longer has its
> ontological primacy—is inconceivable—and thus objectively
> impossible. Given, that is, God's design and intention
> for each person. But perhaps you will want to argue
> against this. For me, it is fixed. Which is why I have
> become an apostate from the East and all things Maharishi.


"Fortunate are they who live in Union with God.
They are man's guides on earth, furthering the
evolution of all creation. They are above the
limitations of religion or race. Whether they
play with God or hold Him as one with their own
Being is a point to be settled between them and
God.

"They live as devotees of God or they become
united, become one with their Beloved--it is a
matter between them. Let it be decided on that
level of Union. One view need not exclude the
other. It is a sin against God to raise
differences over the principle of Union. Let the
followers of both schools of thought aspire to
achieve their respective goals and then find in
that consciousness that the other standpoint is
also right at its own level."

--MMY, commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, 6:32

Not to argue with you on this point; I haven't a
clue. I just thought it was interesting how directly
(and forcefully) MMY had addressed what you just wrote.

I have a personal question to ask you. If you'd rather
not answer, no problem, and please forgive me if it
seems intrusive.

Is your birthday on or near February 15?

RESPONSE: Nowhere near this date, Judy. And by the way, I don't think it makes 
any sense to say that there is no ultimate difference between 'holding God as 
one with one's own being' and 'playing with God' as separate from one's own 
being. There is a kind of seductive paradox here, which defies rational 
analysis. Does there exist a being who is ontologically distinct from oneself? 
or is it that one's self is identical to God and therefore there is no 
ontological difference between God and the one's own self?

This is a factual matter, not something that can be expressed (and in effect 
dismissed) in some mystically paradoxical way, as if to say both answers are 
equally true. If it doesn't matter whether there is a Personal God who created 
us, or whether we are just a manifestation of the Absolute (and therefore *are* 
the Impersonal God), then what *does* matter?

Who possibly could get away with saying this other than Maharishi? Can ultimate 
reality be something that can be experienced in two ways, such as to contradict 
each other?

The concepts are mutually exclusive.

What if someone in learning Maharishi had said this, confronted Maharishi with 
the question: "I have read what you say in the Bhagavad-Gita, Maharishi, about 
the Personal versus the Impersonal God. Which is it that *you* believe? Is God 
one's own self, or is God a being who is separate from oneself?"

Maharishi surely would not answer: "You can have it both ways; I experience 
that both are true." 

He would say that at the highest level of consciousness the self is experienced 
to be the Self, and there therefore is no distinction between God and one's own 
being. Therefore there is no Personal God.

Maharishi tells us that God doesn't approve of this question: "It is a sin 
against God to raise differences over the principle of Union" If one's self is 
only the Self, then who is the aggrieved party? It could only be a matter of 
grave concern that this question even comes up if in fact God *was* separate 
from one's own self. Because otherwise one is sinning against one's own being 
by wondering which of this concepts is true, which is false.

It is much like what the Rig Veda says: "Whence this creation has come into 
being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. 
Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not."

Note the last sentence. Does it not bear some similarity to what Maharishi is 
saying in his Bhagavad-Gita commentary?

Who is it who knows that perhaps "he in the highest heaven" knows or does not 
know? Where does Maharishi get his inspiration to declare that both the 
Impersonal and the Personal God are equally valid as forms of worship or 
understanding of ultimate reality? Is there actually, objectively an answer to 
this question? Surely there is. And therefore one idea is false to reality; the 
other idea true. What, pray tell, is behind making the comment that God 
considers it a sin to

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[Ravi Yogi]

I wasn't running away empty away, I came looking for you in that mansion of 
yours.

I couldn't find you, I was yelling, tired and frustrated, standing on one of 
these huge mound of books that you refer to as Mt. Kailash? I apologize for not 
guessing it.

But that was no reason to start flinging your books at me empty.

One of the damn books really hurt me empty and so I got pissed off.

I didn't leave though empty. I'm here waiting for you.

But you really need to stop flinging those books OK? It hurts physically and 
emotionally.

I'm still at Mt. Kailash - OK empty?

I'm not like others OK empty?

I am not here to hurt you like others. I love you empty but you need to stop 
this game, step out of the emptiness that you feel, that you could fill the 
emptiness with all those books of yours.

I'm still here empty, on Mt. Kailash..

On Nov 14, 2011, at 7:49 PM, "emptybill"  wrote:

> 
> What they say is that all these appearances are the very contemplations
> of god and thus are the ineffable presences of grace.
> 
> However, there is no book but You, M.F.
> 
> Still running away?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi  wrote:
> >
> > Empty just leave me the fuck alone OK??
> >
> > OK, OK..Your books are indeed right, OK? fine?? Happy? Now just go for
> a walk..
> >
> > Hmm...What do your books say about walking? Or the Sunset at the
> beach?
> >
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2011, at 6:47 PM, "emptybill" emptybill@... wrote:
> >
> > > "What b.s.
> > >
> > > Intellect (created / uncreated):
> > >
> > > The Intellect, in a certain sense, is `divine' for the mind and
> `created' or `manifested' for God: it is none the less necessary to
> distinguish between a `created Intellect' and an `uncreated Intellect',
> the latter being the divine Light and the former the reflection of this
> Light at the center of Existence; `essentially', they are One, but
> `existentially', they are distinct, so that we could say, in Hindu
> style, that the Intellect is `neither divine nor non-divine', an
> elliptical expression which doubtless is repugnant to the Latin and
> Western mentality, but which transmits an essential shade of meaning.
> However that may be, when we speak of the Heart-Intellect, we mean the
> universal faculty which has the human heart for its symbolical seat, but
> which, while being `crystallised' according to different planes of
> reflection, is none the less `divine' in its single essence.
> > >
> > > [GDW, Ternary Aspect of the Human Microcosm]
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > LOL..the intellect is very calculative, it always wants to be
> ahead, rationalizes so it comes out ahead, fashions itself as caring,
> neutral, compassionate not recognizing it's inherent coldness and
> hostility.
> > > >
> > > > Curtis fares a little better on my Lover Pimp scale but he
> tartbrain and Xeno are birds of the same feather.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anartaxius"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not see how it would really be possible to sin
> > > > > against god, since from that point of view there is
> > > > > no opposition.
> > > > 
> > > > From which point of view?
> > > 
> > > God's point of view.
> > 
> > Yeah, we're talking about the human point of view.
> 
> You may have been talking about a human point of view.
> I was not.

You were commenting on something MMY said. He was a human
being, not God, and he was talking about human beings
sinning against God. You're a human being, not God, talking
about whether human beings can sin against God. As far as
I'm aware, God hasn't weighed in on the discussion.

> > > > In the formulation I quoted, those committing the sin
> > > > would be those who had not achieved the goal of Unity.
> > > > According to the quote, those who had achieved it
> > > > would have recognized both standpoints were "right"
> > > > and therefore would not be inclined to "raise differences
> > > > about the principle of Union."
> > > > 
> > > > > But I will STFU about it.
> > > > 
> > > > Why? Because MMY said you should?
> > > 
> > > I was just following the advice you wrote in your post:
> > 
> > On what basis would *I* be giving advice on such a topic?
> 
> I notice you cut out what you wrote in this reply which I
> left intact and also requoted. I thought you wrote it, did
> I make a mistake? This is what you wrote. Here is the full
> paragraph from message #295445:

Don't embarrass yourself, Xeno. You aren't *that* obtuse.

> 'I don't think he's denying distinctions in this quote, but
>  I don't think he's talking about a hierarchy of levels
>  either, rather to the contrary. His main point is that it's
>  absurd to make an issue of the difference, and he points out
>  that anyone who's in a position to make the choice he
>  describes is also going to recognize that whatever that
>  choice, it isn't somehow "better" or "more right" 
>  than the alternative. And anybody who *isn't* in 
>  that position should just STFU about it.'
> 
> > Here's some advice I *can* give you: read what you're
> > commenting on more carefully.
> 
> How do you interpret the above paragraph you wrote (the
> one above the sentence immediately above)?

See if you can find the following phrases in what I wrote:

His main point is 
he points out that 
the choice he describes

Did you find them? Were they in what I wrote originally? Yes?

Good.

Now, do those phrases suggest anything to you about who was
giving the advice?

> > > > > That last sentence almost sounds like Barry.
> > > > 
> > > > Cute. Also hostile.
> > > 
> > > I do not think cute and hostile go together very well, you
> > > tend to interpret things I would consider as neutral has
> > > hostile.
> > 
> > I'm not sure you recognize your own hostility.
> 
> I was making a comment, no hostility intended.

Let me say it another way: I'm not sure you recognize
your own hostility.

Do you recognize the hostility in my responses? Yes?

Good.

> I felt it was uncharacteristic of your usual replies, but
> maybe I am mistaken.

You're mistaken, but of course that isn't the point; what
you said would have been hostile either way.

Basta. Go harass somebody else, please.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[emptybill]

What they say is that all these appearances are the very contemplations
of god and thus are the ineffable presences of grace.

However, there is no book but You, M.F.


Still running away?





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi  wrote:
>
> Empty just leave me the fuck alone OK??
>
> OK, OK..Your books are indeed right, OK? fine?? Happy? Now just go for
a walk..
>
> Hmm...What do your books say about walking? Or the Sunset at the
beach?
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2011, at 6:47 PM, "emptybill" emptybill@... wrote:
>
> > "What b.s.
> >
> > Intellect (created / uncreated):
> >
> > The Intellect, in a certain sense, is `divine' for the mind and
`created' or `manifested' for God: it is none the less necessary to
distinguish between a `created Intellect' and an `uncreated Intellect',
the latter being the divine Light and the former the reflection of this
Light at the center of Existence; `essentially', they are One, but
`existentially', they are distinct, so that we could say, in Hindu
style, that the Intellect is `neither divine nor non-divine', an
elliptical expression which doubtless is repugnant to the Latin and
Western mentality, but which transmits an essential shade of meaning.
However that may be, when we speak of the Heart-Intellect, we mean the
universal faculty which has the human heart for its symbolical seat, but
which, while being `crystallised' according to different planes of
reflection, is none the less `divine' in its single essence.
> >
> > [GDW, Ternary Aspect of the Human Microcosm]
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
> > >
> > > LOL..the intellect is very calculative, it always wants to be
ahead, rationalizes so it comes out ahead, fashions itself as caring,
neutral, compassionate not recognizing it's inherent coldness and
hostility.
> > >
> > > Curtis fares a little better on my Lover Pimp scale but he
tartbrain and Xeno are birds of the same feather.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anartaxius"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I do not see how it would really be possible to sin
> > > > against god, since from that point of view there is
> > > > no opposition.
> > > 
> > > From which point of view?
> > 
> > God's point of view.
> 
> Yeah, we're talking about the human point of view.

You may have been talking about a human point of view. I was not.
> 
> > > In the formulation I quoted, those committing the sin
> > > would be those who had not achieved the goal of Unity.
> > > According to the quote, those who had achieved it
> > > would have recognized both standpoints were "right"
> > > and therefore would not be inclined to "raise differences
> > > about the principle of Union."
> > > 
> > > > But I will STFU about it.
> > > 
> > > Why? Because MMY said you should?
> > 
> > I was just following the advice you wrote in your post:
> 
> On what basis would *I* be giving advice on such a topic?

I notice you cut out what you wrote in this reply which I left intact and also 
requoted. I thought you wrote it, did I make a mistake? This is what you wrote. 
Here is the full paragraph from message #295445:

'I don't think he's denying distinctions in this quote, but
 I don't think he's talking about a hierarchy of levels
 either, rather to the contrary. His main point is that it's
 absurd to make an issue of the difference, and he points out
 that anyone who's in a position to make the choice he
 describes is also going to recognize that whatever that
 choice, it isn't somehow "better" or "more right" 
 than the alternative. And anybody who *isn't* in 
 that position should just STFU about it.'


> 
> Here's some advice I *can* give you: read what you're
> commenting on more carefully.

How do you interpret the above paragraph you wrote (the one above the sentence 
immediately above)?

> 
> > > > That last sentence almost sounds like Barry.
> > > 
> > > Cute. Also hostile.
> > 
> > I do not think cute and hostile go together very well, you
> > tend to interpret things I would consider as neutral has
> > hostile.
> 
> I'm not sure you recognize your own hostility.

I was making a comment, no hostility intended. I felt it was uncharacteristic 
of your usual replies, but maybe I am mistaken.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[Ravi Yogi]

Empty just leave me the fuck alone OK?? 

OK, OK..Your books are indeed right, OK? fine?? Happy? Now just go for a walk..

Hmm...What do your books say about walking? Or the Sunset at the beach?


On Nov 14, 2011, at 6:47 PM, "emptybill"  wrote:

> "What b.s.
> 
> Intellect (created / uncreated): 
> 
> The Intellect, in a certain sense, is `divine' for the mind and `created' or 
> `manifested' for God: it is none the less necessary to distinguish between a 
> `created Intellect' and an `uncreated Intellect', the latter being the divine 
> Light and the former the reflection of this Light at the center of Existence; 
> `essentially', they are One, but `existentially', they are distinct, so that 
> we could say, in Hindu style, that the Intellect is `neither divine nor 
> non-divine', an elliptical expression which doubtless is repugnant to the 
> Latin and Western mentality, but which transmits an essential shade of 
> meaning. However that may be, when we speak of the Heart-Intellect, we mean 
> the universal faculty which has the human heart for its symbolical seat, but 
> which, while being `crystallised' according to different planes of 
> reflection, is none the less `divine' in its single essence. 
> 
> [GDW, Ternary Aspect of the Human Microcosm]
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi  wrote:
> > 
> > LOL..the intellect is very calculative, it always wants to be ahead, 
> > rationalizes so it comes out ahead, fashions itself as caring, neutral, 
> > compassionate not recognizing it's inherent coldness and hostility. 
> > 
> > Curtis fares a little better on my Lover Pimp scale but he tartbrain and 
> > Xeno are birds of the same feather.
> > 
> > 
> > >
> >
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[emptybill]

"What b.s.

Intellect (created / uncreated):

The Intellect, in a certain sense, is `divine' for the mind and
`created' or `manifested' for God: it is none the less
necessary to distinguish between a `created Intellect' and an
`uncreated Intellect', the latter being the divine Light and the
former the reflection of this Light at the center of Existence;
`essentially', they are One, but `existentially', they
are distinct, so that we could say, in Hindu style, that the Intellect
is `neither divine nor non-divine', an elliptical expression
which doubtless is repugnant to the Latin and Western mentality, but
which transmits an essential shade of meaning. However that may be, when
we speak of the Heart-Intellect, we mean the universal faculty which has
the human heart for its symbolical seat, but which, while being
`crystallised' according to different planes of reflection, is
none the less `divine' in its single essence.

[GDW, Ternary Aspect of the Human Microcosm]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi  wrote:
>
> LOL..the intellect is very calculative, it always wants to be ahead,
rationalizes so it comes out ahead, fashions itself as caring, neutral,
compassionate not recognizing it's inherent coldness and hostility.
>
> Curtis fares a little better on my Lover Pimp scale but he tartbrain
and Xeno are birds of the same feather.
>
>
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[Ravi Yogi]

On Nov 14, 2011, at 5:00 PM, "authfriend"  wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anartaxius"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I do not see how it would really be possible to sin
> > > > against god, since from that point of view there is
> > > > no opposition.
> > > 
> > > From which point of view?
> > 
> > God's point of view.
> 
> Yeah, we're talking about the human point of view.
> 
> > > In the formulation I quoted, those committing the sin
> > > would be those who had not achieved the goal of Unity.
> > > According to the quote, those who had achieved it
> > > would have recognized both standpoints were "right"
> > > and therefore would not be inclined to "raise differences
> > > about the principle of Union."
> > > 
> > > > But I will STFU about it.
> > > 
> > > Why? Because MMY said you should?
> > 
> > I was just following the advice you wrote in your post:
> 
> On what basis would *I* be giving advice on such a topic?
> 
> Here's some advice I *can* give you: read what you're
> commenting on more carefully.
> 
> 
> > > > That last sentence almost sounds like Barry.
> > > 
> > > Cute. Also hostile.
> > 
> > I do not think cute and hostile go together very well, you
> > tend to interpret things I would consider as neutral has
> > hostile.
> 
> I'm not sure you recognize your own hostility.
> 
> 

LOL..the intellect is very calculative, it always wants to be ahead, 
rationalizes so it comes out ahead, fashions itself as caring, neutral, 
compassionate not recognizing it's inherent coldness and hostility. 

Curtis fares a little better on my Lover Pimp scale but he tartbrain and Xeno 
are birds of the same feather.


> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anartaxius"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not see how it would really be possible to sin
> > > against god, since from that point of view there is
> > > no opposition.
> > 
> > From which point of view?
> 
> God's point of view.

Yeah, we're talking about the human point of view.

> > In the formulation I quoted, those committing the sin
> > would be those who had not achieved the goal of Unity.
> > According to the quote, those who had achieved it
> > would have recognized both standpoints were "right"
> > and therefore would not be inclined to "raise differences
> > about the principle of Union."
> > 
> > > But I will STFU about it.
> > 
> > Why? Because MMY said you should?
> 
> I was just following the advice you wrote in your post:

On what basis would *I* be giving advice on such a topic?

Here's some advice I *can* give you: read what you're
commenting on more carefully.


> > > That last sentence almost sounds like Barry.
> > 
> > Cute. Also hostile.
> 
> I do not think cute and hostile go together very well, you
> tend to interpret things I would consider as neutral has
> hostile.

I'm not sure you recognize your own hostility.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anartaxius"  wrote:
>
> I do not see how it would really be possible to sin
> against god, since from that point of view there is
> no opposition.

>From which point of view?

In the formulation I quoted, those committing the sin
would be those who had not achieved the goal of Unity.
According to the quote, those who had achieved it
would have recognized both standpoints were "right"
and therefore would not be inclined to "raise differences
about the principle of Union."

> But I will STFU about it.

Why? Because MMY said you should?

> That last sentence almost sounds like Barry.

Cute. Also hostile.



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > I don't think he's denying distinctions in this quote, but
> > I don't think he's talking about a hierarchy of levels
> > either, rather to the contrary. His main point is that it's
> > absurd to make an issue of the difference, and he points out
> > that anyone who's in a position to make the choice he
> > describes is also going to recognize that whatever that
> > choice, it isn't somehow "better" or "more right" than the alternative. And 
> > anybody who *isn't* in that position
> > should just STFU about it.
> > 
> > "Sin against God" is pretty strong language for MMY, so
> > he must have thought it was rather important.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > The quotes from Maharishi below were first published in 1963. In later 
> > > years he seemed to make greater distinctions between GC and UC, and the 
> > > term BC came up in later years. It makes me wonder what changes in his 
> > > own experience occurred in the subsequent years. Even here he says the 
> > > principle of union 'has levels' and does that mean one of those levels is 
> > > 'higher' or more advanced than the other? He had another 45 years to go. 
> > > And this was before he switched away from the more religiously oriented 
> > > language he used in this period. Maharishi obviously had to go through 
> > > experiences, for after all, he was once just a disciple, like most of us 
> > > here on the forum.
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Note that GMH is not saying one's small self becomes the
> > > > > large Self of God. He is saying that just as Christ was
> > > > > both human and divine at the same time, so it is possible
> > > > > for a human being�under grace�to sense the union of
> > > > > Christ's divinity with one's own self�*but all the while
> > > > > preserving this distinction and therefore separateness*.
> > > > > The personal self of each human being is always what
> > > > > finally comes to know God. The very idea of extinguishing
> > > > > this individual self�so that it no longer has its 
> > > > > ontological primacy�is inconceivable�and thus objectively
> > > > > impossible. Given, that is, God's design and intention
> > > > > for each person. But perhaps you will want to argue
> > > > > against this. For me, it is fixed. Which is why I have
> > > > > become an apostate from the East and all things Maharishi.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > "Fortunate are they who live in Union with God.
> > > > They are man's guides on earth, furthering the
> > > > evolution of all creation. They are above the
> > > > limitations of religion or race. Whether they
> > > > play with God or hold Him as one with their own
> > > > Being is a point to be settled between them and
> > > > God.
> > > > 
> > > > "They live as devotees of God or they become
> > > > united, become one with their Beloved--it is a
> > > > matter between them. Let it be decided on that
> > > > level of Union. One view need not exclude the
> > > > other. It is a sin against God to raise
> > > > differences over the principle of Union. Let the
> > > > followers of both schools of thought aspire to
> > > > achieve their respective goals and then find in
> > > > that consciousness that the other standpoint is
> > > > also right at its own level."
> > > > 
> > > > --MMY, commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, 6:32
> > > > 
> > > > Not to argue with you on this point; I haven't a
> > > > clue. I just thought it was interesting how directly
> > > > (and forcefully) MMY had addressed what you just wrote.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[anartaxius]

I do not see how it would really be possible to sin against god, since from 
that point of view there is no opposition. But I will STFU about it. That last 
sentence almost sounds like Barry. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> I don't think he's denying distinctions in this quote, but
> I don't think he's talking about a hierarchy of levels
> either, rather to the contrary. His main point is that it's
> absurd to make an issue of the difference, and he points out
> that anyone who's in a position to make the choice he
> describes is also going to recognize that whatever that
> choice, it isn't somehow "better" or "more right" than the alternative. And 
> anybody who *isn't* in that position
> should just STFU about it.
> 
> "Sin against God" is pretty strong language for MMY, so
> he must have thought it was rather important.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > The quotes from Maharishi below were first published in 1963. In later 
> > years he seemed to make greater distinctions between GC and UC, and the 
> > term BC came up in later years. It makes me wonder what changes in his own 
> > experience occurred in the subsequent years. Even here he says the 
> > principle of union 'has levels' and does that mean one of those levels is 
> > 'higher' or more advanced than the other? He had another 45 years to go. 
> > And this was before he switched away from the more religiously oriented 
> > language he used in this period. Maharishi obviously had to go through 
> > experiences, for after all, he was once just a disciple, like most of us 
> > here on the forum.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Note that GMH is not saying one's small self becomes the
> > > > large Self of God. He is saying that just as Christ was
> > > > both human and divine at the same time, so it is possible
> > > > for a human being�under grace�to sense the union of
> > > > Christ's divinity with one's own self�*but all the while
> > > > preserving this distinction and therefore separateness*.
> > > > The personal self of each human being is always what
> > > > finally comes to know God. The very idea of extinguishing
> > > > this individual self�so that it no longer has its 
> > > > ontological primacy�is inconceivable�and thus objectively
> > > > impossible. Given, that is, God's design and intention
> > > > for each person. But perhaps you will want to argue
> > > > against this. For me, it is fixed. Which is why I have
> > > > become an apostate from the East and all things Maharishi.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "Fortunate are they who live in Union with God.
> > > They are man's guides on earth, furthering the
> > > evolution of all creation. They are above the
> > > limitations of religion or race. Whether they
> > > play with God or hold Him as one with their own
> > > Being is a point to be settled between them and
> > > God.
> > > 
> > > "They live as devotees of God or they become
> > > united, become one with their Beloved--it is a
> > > matter between them. Let it be decided on that
> > > level of Union. One view need not exclude the
> > > other. It is a sin against God to raise
> > > differences over the principle of Union. Let the
> > > followers of both schools of thought aspire to
> > > achieve their respective goals and then find in
> > > that consciousness that the other standpoint is
> > > also right at its own level."
> > > 
> > > --MMY, commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, 6:32
> > > 
> > > Not to argue with you on this point; I haven't a
> > > clue. I just thought it was interesting how directly
> > > (and forcefully) MMY had addressed what you just wrote.
> > > 
> > > I have a personal question to ask you. If you'd rather
> > > not answer, no problem, and please forgive me if it
> > > seems intrusive.
> > > 
> > > Is your birthday on or near February 15?
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[authfriend]

I don't think he's denying distinctions in this quote, but
I don't think he's talking about a hierarchy of levels
either, rather to the contrary. His main point is that it's
absurd to make an issue of the difference, and he points out
that anyone who's in a position to make the choice he
describes is also going to recognize that whatever that
choice, it isn't somehow "better" or "more right" than the alternative. And 
anybody who *isn't* in that position
should just STFU about it.

"Sin against God" is pretty strong language for MMY, so
he must have thought it was rather important.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> The quotes from Maharishi below were first published in 1963. In later years 
> he seemed to make greater distinctions between GC and UC, and the term BC 
> came up in later years. It makes me wonder what changes in his own experience 
> occurred in the subsequent years. Even here he says the principle of union 
> 'has levels' and does that mean one of those levels is 'higher' or more 
> advanced than the other? He had another 45 years to go. And this was before 
> he switched away from the more religiously oriented language he used in this 
> period. Maharishi obviously had to go through experiences, for after all, he 
> was once just a disciple, like most of us here on the forum.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > 
> > > Note that GMH is not saying one's small self becomes the
> > > large Self of God. He is saying that just as Christ was
> > > both human and divine at the same time, so it is possible
> > > for a human being—under grace—to sense the union of
> > > Christ's divinity with one's own self—*but all the while
> > > preserving this distinction and therefore separateness*.
> > > The personal self of each human being is always what
> > > finally comes to know God. The very idea of extinguishing
> > > this individual self—so that it no longer has its 
> > > ontological primacy—is inconceivable—and thus objectively
> > > impossible. Given, that is, God's design and intention
> > > for each person. But perhaps you will want to argue
> > > against this. For me, it is fixed. Which is why I have
> > > become an apostate from the East and all things Maharishi.
> > 
> > 
> > "Fortunate are they who live in Union with God.
> > They are man's guides on earth, furthering the
> > evolution of all creation. They are above the
> > limitations of religion or race. Whether they
> > play with God or hold Him as one with their own
> > Being is a point to be settled between them and
> > God.
> > 
> > "They live as devotees of God or they become
> > united, become one with their Beloved--it is a
> > matter between them. Let it be decided on that
> > level of Union. One view need not exclude the
> > other. It is a sin against God to raise
> > differences over the principle of Union. Let the
> > followers of both schools of thought aspire to
> > achieve their respective goals and then find in
> > that consciousness that the other standpoint is
> > also right at its own level."
> > 
> > --MMY, commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, 6:32
> > 
> > Not to argue with you on this point; I haven't a
> > clue. I just thought it was interesting how directly
> > (and forcefully) MMY had addressed what you just wrote.
> > 
> > I have a personal question to ask you. If you'd rather
> > not answer, no problem, and please forgive me if it
> > seems intrusive.
> > 
> > Is your birthday on or near February 15?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

The quotes from Maharishi below were first published in 1963. In later years he 
seemed to make greater distinctions between GC and UC, and the term BC came up 
in later years. It makes me wonder what changes in his own experience occurred 
in the subsequent years. Even here he says the principle of union 'has levels' 
and does that mean one of those levels is 'higher' or more advanced than the 
other? He had another 45 years to go. And this was before he switched away from 
the more religiously oriented language he used in this period. Maharishi 
obviously had to go through experiences, for after all, he was once just a 
disciple, like most of us here on the forum.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> 
> > Note that GMH is not saying one's small self becomes the
> > large Self of God. He is saying that just as Christ was
> > both human and divine at the same time, so it is possible
> > for a human being—under grace—to sense the union of
> > Christ's divinity with one's own self—*but all the while
> > preserving this distinction and therefore separateness*.
> > The personal self of each human being is always what
> > finally comes to know God. The very idea of extinguishing
> > this individual self—so that it no longer has its 
> > ontological primacy—is inconceivable—and thus objectively
> > impossible. Given, that is, God's design and intention
> > for each person. But perhaps you will want to argue
> > against this. For me, it is fixed. Which is why I have
> > become an apostate from the East and all things Maharishi.
> 
> 
> "Fortunate are they who live in Union with God.
> They are man's guides on earth, furthering the
> evolution of all creation. They are above the
> limitations of religion or race. Whether they
> play with God or hold Him as one with their own
> Being is a point to be settled between them and
> God.
> 
> "They live as devotees of God or they become
> united, become one with their Beloved--it is a
> matter between them. Let it be decided on that
> level of Union. One view need not exclude the
> other. It is a sin against God to raise
> differences over the principle of Union. Let the
> followers of both schools of thought aspire to
> achieve their respective goals and then find in
> that consciousness that the other standpoint is
> also right at its own level."
> 
> --MMY, commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, 6:32
> 
> Not to argue with you on this point; I haven't a
> clue. I just thought it was interesting how directly
> (and forcefully) MMY had addressed what you just wrote.
> 
> I have a personal question to ask you. If you'd rather
> not answer, no problem, and please forgive me if it
> seems intrusive.
> 
> Is your birthday on or near February 15?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:

> Note that GMH is not saying one's small self becomes the
> large Self of God. He is saying that just as Christ was
> both human and divine at the same time, so it is possible
> for a human being—under grace—to sense the union of
> Christ's divinity with one's own self—*but all the while
> preserving this distinction and therefore separateness*.
> The personal self of each human being is always what
> finally comes to know God. The very idea of extinguishing
> this individual self—so that it no longer has its 
> ontological primacy—is inconceivable—and thus objectively
> impossible. Given, that is, God's design and intention
> for each person. But perhaps you will want to argue
> against this. For me, it is fixed. Which is why I have
> become an apostate from the East and all things Maharishi.


"Fortunate are they who live in Union with God.
They are man's guides on earth, furthering the
evolution of all creation. They are above the
limitations of religion or race. Whether they
play with God or hold Him as one with their own
Being is a point to be settled between them and
God.

"They live as devotees of God or they become
united, become one with their Beloved--it is a
matter between them. Let it be decided on that
level of Union. One view need not exclude the
other. It is a sin against God to raise
differences over the principle of Union. Let the
followers of both schools of thought aspire to
achieve their respective goals and then find in
that consciousness that the other standpoint is
also right at its own level."

--MMY, commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, 6:32

Not to argue with you on this point; I haven't a
clue. I just thought it was interesting how directly
(and forcefully) MMY had addressed what you just wrote.

I have a personal question to ask you. If you'd rather
not answer, no problem, and please forgive me if it
seems intrusive.

Is your birthday on or near February 15?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Well, this was certainly an effective troll.

Uh, no, it wasn't, actually. Of 35 posts in the thread,
almost none actually addressed the metaphor. Obbajeeba
liked it. Robin was the sole poster to argue with it,
and he did so only in the context of using it to finely
dice Barry's chronic ill will, pretentiousness, and lack
of self-awareness.

The rest of the posts were folks going off on their own
trips with YouTubes and poetry and such, not related to
the metaphor Barry intended to arouse general rage.

Note that Barry goes on to spin a hallucinatory fantasy
in which the TMers here angrily protested the metaphor.
Barry *expected* them to, but they didn't. So he just
invented a scenario in which they did, expounding on 
why they got angry, even claiming that the nonexistent
angry reactions *proved that the metaphor was accurate*.

Note also that it never occurred to Barry to ask himself
why--if reading FFL is indeed "like stumbling across a
weird group of fanatical Monkees fans"--after having
stumbled across it initially back in 2005, he's been
reading and contributing to it on a regular basis ever
since.

Why would anybody but a fanatical Monkees fan want to
hang out with a bunch of other fanatical Monkees fans
for over six years?









 :-) But the more I think
> about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to
> Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who
> frequent those worlds often display.
> 
> What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to
> laugh, "getting" that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does*
> equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In other
> words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little.
> 
> Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who
> feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth but
> one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so
> important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the
> level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of Monkees
> fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they appear
> to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image.
> Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to
> have done.
> 
> The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this
> forum *is* opinion, not "truth") is that the metaphor just *nails* it.
> They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a religion,
> just as they turned "20 minutes twice a day" into several hours a day,
> and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives
> there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as
> monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed.
> 
> Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And I
> suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to
> having a little fun poked at them.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I
> > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for
> a
> > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
> with
> > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider
> > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.  :-)
> >
> > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
> Monkees
> > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
> glory
> > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
> argue
> > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
> esoteric
> > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
> because
> > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees
> > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
> other
> > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after
> > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> >
> > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > place.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[maskedzebra]

Dear raunchydog,

Yes, that is confounding to me: that Barry Wright insults, offends, bullies, 
abuses—and yet will never stand his ground. He only answers those whom he 
suspects have some sympathy with him. He avoids the danger of the tension set 
up by someone who would put the onus on him to do the honourable thing. 

I think I am defeated by the attempt to understand how an adult man can throw 
rocks off the bridge at cars, and then when the driver with the broken 
windshield comes up on the overpass to confront him, he vanishes. It is as if 
his conscience has been anaesthetized—but I have said this before. And then 
Curtis, he defends Barry in a form which utterly distorts what Barry is doing—I 
this this dishonest in Curtis.

Me, I am waiting for the first sign of courage and honesty in Barry Wright: 
that is, since I have addressed him directly, he defends himself by taking me 
on. How easy it would be for me to discover—in his personal justification—that 
I was wrong about him. This would be a boon for me. And I could forgive Curtis 
as well since he was only being patient with me, all throughout the time he 
knew I was misperceiving his good friend.

As far as I can tell, Barry has not once answered one of his critics. Are we to 
infer from this that he doesn't think their judgments apply to him? For me, I 
can only feel how much he is missing in his experience of being a human being. 
Attitude is all. He has no clue how all of creation feels when he injects his 
venom—and the thing is: *it just goes right back into him*.

Meanwhile, I appreciate—let me so interpret your post this way—your having 
realized how carefully and faithfully I have tracked our good friend from 
Amsterdam.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> Robin, you have quite a talent for removing the mask from slippery
> characters. Kudos! Judy has calling Barry out for the same behavior for
> years and he still doesn't get it. Never will.  A zebra doesn't change
> its stripes.
> 
> 
>   [http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Orange-jelly-Nailed-it.jpg]
> 
> http://youtu.be/1pAcfJQgxjE 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> > The Barry Wright Syndrome
> >
> > Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja is
> trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club
> members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent
> of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has
> to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a
> kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point
> of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to convince
> even himself that what he says is true.
> >
> > This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but
> refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating
> a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate
> the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is
> quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional
> reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the
> purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism.
> Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never
> thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really
> believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my
> point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, corroborate
> this opinion?
> >
> > But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to
> ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own
> experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and
> opinion that Barry expresses—we are mostly talking here about
> matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e.
> what has first drawn us into posting at FFL—is worth considering,
> examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry drags in his
> negative emotionality—I suppose he is oblivious to this—and lets
> that drive his opinion. So that what—take this post here—happens
> is that someone has said: "Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a
> whore." The child of the woman who has thus been so characterized
> wonders: "Is my mother really that unattractive, and is she prostituting
> herself?"
> >
> > But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats
> his insult, and then proceeds to act—through what follows in his
> post—as if this description of the person does not need explanation
> or defence; Barry Wright has said it; that is enough to make it true.
> >
> > Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it
> out as so we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that
> what he is asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the
> merits of his

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[maskedzebra]

Dear Merudanda,

I actually missed this post—but suspected it existed when I read your second 
post addressed to me. Now I have found it, I feel even more drawn to responding 
to you; and I will.

I have no choice, and I am going to enjoy this exercise.

I probably will have to—to even begin to do justice to you—go line by line.

What is it about you, Merudanda, that compels you to 'create' as you write; and 
not merely give us information—or, as the good man Barry Wright insists, offer 
up only opinion? You always come in colours, and the ground moves just a little 
underneath my feet.

Do you illustrate children's books for a living, or something?

maskedzebra



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> lol
> You MZ lives in limbs,
> And looks through eyes not yours
> With lovely yearning?
> "Keeps grace," (abiding in the "sanctifying grace"):
> "that keeps all his goings graces"?
>   And denying now the "instress"ness, the shaping force within creatures
> of nature and art at FFL, in contradiction to your previous insistence
> that "inscape" was the essence of the postings at FFL  "landscape" by
> quoting  Hopkins then and there?
> Then and there the "inscaped" landscape markedly holding its most simple
> and beautiful oneness up from the ground through a graceful swerve below
> the spring of the branches up to the tops of the FFL timber. I saw the
> "inscape" freshly, as if my mind were still growing, though now the eye
> and the ear are for the most part shut. And instress, the "doing-be" of
> turquoiseb(ee) the positing or pitching of his whole self in his
> "selving" act of artistic will and "thisness"...  now cannot come.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there is one notable dead tree . . ? [:D]
> 
> Verbum dei clarescit in forma hominis,
> Et ideo fulgemus cum illo,
> Edificantes membra sui pulcri corporis.
> 
> Hildegard von Bingen: "Ordo Virtutem"
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> > The Barry Wright Syndrome
> >
> > Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja is
> trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club
> members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent
> of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has
> to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a
> kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point
> of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to convince
> even himself that what he says is true.
> >
> > This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but
> refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating
> a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate
> the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is
> quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional
> reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the
> purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism.
> Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never
> thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really
> believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my
> point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, corroborate
> this opinion?
> >
> > But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to
> ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own
> experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and
> opinion that Barry expresses—we are mostly talking here about
> matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e.
> what has first drawn us into posting at FFL—is worth considering,
> examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry drags in his
> negative emotionality—I suppose he is oblivious to this—and lets
> that drive his opinion. So that what—take this post here—happens
> is that someone has said: "Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a
> whore." The child of the woman who has thus been so characterized
> wonders: "Is my mother really that unattractive, and is she prostituting
> herself?"
> >
> > But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats
> his insult, and then proceeds to act—through what follows in his
> post—as if this description of the person does not need explanation
> or defence; Barry Wright has said it; that is enough to make it true.
> >
> > Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it
> out as so we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that
> what he is asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the
> merits of his point of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively,
> reflexively ignores even the theoretical possibility that there is data
> contradictory to his point of view; he merely ignores the very idea of
> another, competing point of view. Barry is thus selectively biased in
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[maskedzebra]

Thank you for prompting me to look at this again

The Word of God shines bright in human form,
And thus we shine with him,
Building up the limbs of his beautiful body.
(Verbum dei clarescit in forma hominis,
Et ideo fulgemus cum illo,
Edificantes membra sui pulcri corporis)

Kéeps gráce: thát keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God's eye what in God's eye he is—
Chríst—for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men's faces.

That final metaphor in the poem is an intensive one introducing both the 
metaphor of 'play' (seems the verb 'plays' here is intransitive ) in something, 
as well as the further one of doing so under the approving eyes of a father 
(play 'to" like in  a rap, in music-' interestingly not 'for' the Father ) 

The earlier version of the last two lines in Hopkins's poem was :

Lives in limbs, and looks through eyes not his
With lovely yearning 

Using the earlier imagery (Lives in limbs, and looks through eyes not his
With lovely yearning ), however, can help us towards the basic idea in 
Hopkins's poem - that the presence of Hopkins's Christ may be found in play in 
other human beings, and so guided towards the Father.
...
just a playful thoughtforgive me
only the thought of something bright and precise, that must have somehow 
zigzagging back to the sky, its image too soon blurred to an idea after  you 
open your prayerful hands to see what you have caught, that has been tickling 
your palms with wings or feeler  reading your postings



The Large Family 1963 Rene Magritte




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> lol
> You MZ lives in limbs,
> And looks through eyes not yours
> With lovely yearning?
> "Keeps grace," (abiding in the "sanctifying grace"):
> "that keeps all his goings graces"?
> And denying now the "instress"ness, the shaping force within creatures
> of nature and art at FFL, in contradiction to your previous insistence
> that "inscape" was the essence of the postings at FFL "landscape" by
> quoting Hopkins then and there?
> Then and there the "inscaped" landscape markedly holding its most simple
> and beautiful oneness up from the ground through a graceful swerve below
> the spring of the branches up to the tops of the FFL timber. I saw the
> "inscape" freshly, as if my mind were still growing, though now the eye
> and the ear are for the most part shut. And instress, the "doing-be" of
> turquoiseb(ee) the positing or pitching of his whole self in his
> "selving" act of artistic will and "thisness"... now cannot come.


> 
> 
> 
> Is there is one notable dead tree . . ? [:D]
> 
> Verbum dei clarescit in forma hominis,
> Et ideo fulgemus cum illo,
> Edificantes membra sui pulcri corporis.
> Hildegard von Bingen: "Ordo Virtutem"

Dear Merudanda,

This whole post must be about one of the most thoughtful and intensely 
interesting posts I have read at FFL. I am not sure whether this is the moment 
to go deeply into what you say here; but I will tell you that in making your 
remarks assume the form of poetry you have—I am speaking here of this 
particular instance of someone concentrating and compressing words such that 
the meaning yielded by this act, strikes out and bursts inside of me—bent the 
'malady of the quotidian' [WS]: the helplessness and habit of ordinary unalive 
reality—and created a context of sincerity and truth which goes directly to my 
soul.

You have this beautiful habit of charging your posts with a kind of poetic 
imperative, and this makes the act of interpretation more demanding and 
surprising for the conscientious reader who would follow you to where you begin 
your self-revelations. You seem a quite fascinating and loving human 
being—although in saying this I have no idea about who you are, even whether 
you are a woman or a man. But this gift you have, to make language radiate 
something more than the denotative, it is something close to wonderful. Believe 
me, it is appreciated. Because, although I will not do justice—at least in this 
post—to all of what you have given to me here, you will have to know that all 
that you have written has been almost as transporting as finding a new Hopkins 
poem.

As for the specific interpretation you have put upon certain passages from 
GMH's poems, I will only say at this time that it seems (for this reader at 
least) you have read him right. The whole notion of Hopkins's idea of the self 
was that Christ had become a human being [that is, to say, God has become one 
of his creatures), and in having done so, he made it possible for a certain 
kind of individuation to take place within every human being who came under the 
grace of the Incarnation. And the limits of this happened at the point where 
the very actions of the individual could be informed by the grace of Christ, 
and thus the individuality of that person participated in the reality of Christ 
as a human being. This sets up more or less all th

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[merudanda]

kiss your hand touched by the incredible longwindedness of your wordy
praise
thank you my sunshine singing in the rain and handkiss

In dreams I kiss your hand, madame, your typing fingertips,
And while in slumberland, madame, I'm begging for your lips.
I haven't any right, madame, to do the things I do.
Just when I hold you tight, madame, you vanish with the night, madame.
In dreams I kiss your hand, madame, do yagyas my dreams come true.

here your choice of  a schmaltz version
Whispering Baritone  -- with all typical syncopated thrills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7cvD3k_Klk
Bing Crosby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7IkZdOatmY
Hermann Prey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLjTJtR6kQk&feature=watch_response
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 8:06 AM, merudanda wrote:
>
> >
> > I thought FFL was only true in fairy tales
> > Meant for someone else but not for me.
> > But FFL was out to get me
> > That's the way it seemed.
> > Disappointment haunted all my dreams.
> >
> > Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer
> > Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
> > I couldn't leave the place if I tried.
> >
> > I thought FFL was more or less a givin' thing,
> > Seems the more I gave the less I got.
> > What's the use in tryin'?
> > All you get is pain.
> > When I needed sunshine I got rain.
> >
> > Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer
> > Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
>
> Excellent!
>
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[seventhray1]

This was always one of my favorites.  Still is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUzs5dlLrm0


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> Then I saw your Fairy Field life post, now I'm a believer
> 
> 
> I thought FFL was only true in fairy tales
> Meant for someone else but not for me.
> But FFL was out to get me
> That's the way it seemed.
> Disappointment haunted all my dreams.
> 
> Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer
> Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
> I couldn't leave the place if I tried.
> 
> I thought FFL was more or less a givin' thing,
> Seems the more I gave the less I got.
> What's the use in tryin'?
> All you get is pain.
> When I needed sunshine I got rain.
> 
> Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer
> Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
> 
> a true FFL believer...
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think
> > about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to
> > Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who
> > frequent those worlds often display.
> >
> > What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to
> > laugh, "getting" that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does*
> > equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In
> other
> > words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little.
> >
> > Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who
> > feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth
> but
> > one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so
> > important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the
> > level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of
> Monkees
> > fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they
> appear
> > to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image.
> > Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to
> > have done.
> >
> > The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this
> > forum *is* opinion, not "truth") is that the metaphor just *nails* it.
> > They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a
> religion,
> > just as they turned "20 minutes twice a day" into several hours a day,
> > and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives
> > there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as
> > monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed.
> >
> > Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And
> I
> > suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to
> > having a little fun poked at them.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that
> I
> > > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching
> for
> > a
> > > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
> > with
> > > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along.
> Consider
> > > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.  :-)
> > >
> > > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
> > Monkees
> > > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
> > glory
> > > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
> > argue
> > > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
> > esoteric
> > > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
> > because
> > > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> > > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the
> Monkees
> > > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
> > other
> > > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> > > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> > > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years
> after
> > > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> > >
> > > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > > place.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[merudanda]

Thank you for prompting me to look at this again

The Word of God shines bright in human form,
And thus we shine with him,
Building up the limbs of his beautiful body.
(Verbum dei clarescit in forma hominis,
Et ideo fulgemus cum illo,
Edificantes membra sui pulcri corporis)

Kéeps gráce: thát keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God's eye what in God's eye he is—
Chríst—for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men's faces.

That final metaphor in the poem is an intensive one introducing both the
metaphor of 'play' (seems the verb 'plays' here is intransitive ) in
something, as well as the further one of doing so under the approving
eyes of a father (play 'to" like in  a rap, in music-' interestingly not
'for' the Father )

The earlier version of the last two lines in Hopkins's poem was :

Lives in limbs, and looks through eyes not his
With lovely yearning

Using the earlier imagery (Lives in limbs, and looks through eyes not
his
With lovely yearning ), however, can help us towards the basic idea in
Hopkins's poem - that the presence of Hopkins's Christ may be found in
play in other human beings, and so guided towards the Father.
...
just a playful thoughtforgive me
only the thought of something bright and precise, that must have somehow
zigzagging back to the sky, its image too soon blurred to an idea after 
you open your prayerful hands to see what you have caught, that has been
tickling your palms with wings or feeler  reading your postings



The Large Family 1963 Rene Magritte




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> lol
> You MZ lives in limbs,
> And looks through eyes not yours
> With lovely yearning?
> "Keeps grace," (abiding in the "sanctifying grace"):
> "that keeps all his goings graces"?
>   And denying now the "instress"ness, the shaping force within
creatures
> of nature and art at FFL, in contradiction to your previous insistence
> that "inscape" was the essence of the postings at FFL  "landscape" by
> quoting  Hopkins then and there?
> Then and there the "inscaped" landscape markedly holding its most
simple
> and beautiful oneness up from the ground through a graceful swerve
below
> the spring of the branches up to the tops of the FFL timber. I saw the
> "inscape" freshly, as if my mind were still growing, though now the
eye
> and the ear are for the most part shut. And instress, the "doing-be"
of
> turquoiseb(ee) the positing or pitching of his whole self in his
> "selving" act of artistic will and "thisness"...  now cannot come.
>
>
>
> Is there is one notable dead tree . . ? [:D]
>
> Verbum dei clarescit in forma hominis,
> Et ideo fulgemus cum illo,
> Edificantes membra sui pulcri corporis.
>
> Hildegard von Bingen: "Ordo Virtutem"
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > The Barry Wright Syndrome
> >
> > Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja
is
> trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club
> members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent
> of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he
has
> to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a
> kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point
> of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to
convince
> even himself that what he says is true.
> >
> > This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but
> refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in
stating
> a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to
demonstrate
> the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is
> quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged
emotional
> reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the
> purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism.
> Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never
> thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really
> believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my
> point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it,
corroborate
> this opinion?
> >
> > But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to
> ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own
> experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and
> opinion that Barry expresses—we are mostly talking here about
> matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e.
> what has first drawn us into posting at FFL—is worth considering,
> examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry drags in his
> negative emotionality—I suppose he is oblivious to this—and
lets
> that drive his opinion. So that what—take this post
here—happens
> is that someone has said: "Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a
> whore." The child of the

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[emptybill]

Barry's Baritric-I has opined here many times that everything that can
be said is just opinion ... i.e. there is not nor can there be such a
thing as truth.

Like writing "there is no such thing as writing" or declaring it
is "absolutely true that only relative truth exists", Barry
continues to troll forward on FFL with his multiple absurdities.

As you have pointed out, Barry is so wrapped in his own subjectivity
that the world seems to be his great canvas. This is the very definition
of Shankara's "jagan mithya" (the world is only appearance)
or Plato's chained cave-dwelling prisoners. Doxa (opinion)
represents his desperate wish to affirm his rule over his own world.

Because he hates authority, he hates quotes that describe a reality he
does not care to share. He probably even believes that the distance
between the Earth and Moon changes according to whether he agrees or
disagrees with someone about its correct measure. That is why I have
included the quote below.

Let him have his world. It will eat him soon enough and then later, like
a leaf in the wind, he will be engulfed in this one.

Lucifer: Not to admit that which exceeds us, and not to wish to exceed
oneself: that is in fact the whole program of psychologism, and it is
the very definition of Lucifer. The opposite or primordial and normative
attitude is: not to think except in reference to that which exceeds us,
and to live but for the sake of exceeding oneself; to seek greatness

where this is to be found, and not on the plane of the individual and
his rebellious pettiness. In order to rejoin true greatness, man must
first of all agree to pay the debt of his own pettiness by remaining
small on the plane where he cannot help being small; the sense of
objective reality, on the one hand, and of the absolute, on the other,
does not go

without a certain abnegation, and it is this abnegation in fact which
allows us to be fully

faithful to our human vocation.

from Logic and Transcendence, The Contradiction of Relativism by
Frithjof Schuon



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> The Barry Wright Syndrome
>
> Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja is
trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club
members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent
of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has
to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a
kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point
of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to convince
even himself that what he says is true.
>
> This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but
refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating
a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate
the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is
quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional
reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the
purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism.
Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never
thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really
believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my
point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, corroborate
this opinion?
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[Bhairitu]

Funny, after all this chat yesterday about the Monkees, I searched to 
see if anything new had happened with my 60's Seattle group.  To my 
surprise one of our recordings wound up on a soundtrack of an Adam 
Sandler movie "Strange Wilderness".  I put the Bluray in my NF queue to 
check it out.

On 11/10/2011 06:06 AM, merudanda wrote:
> Then I saw your Fairy Field life post, now I'm a believer
>
>
> I thought FFL was only true in fairy tales
> Meant for someone else but not for me.
> But FFL was out to get me
> That's the way it seemed.
> Disappointment haunted all my dreams.
>
> Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer
> Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
> I couldn't leave the place if I tried.
>
> I thought FFL was more or less a givin' thing,
> Seems the more I gave the less I got.
> What's the use in tryin'?
> All you get is pain.
> When I needed sunshine I got rain.
>
> Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer
> Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
>
> a true FFL believer...
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>> Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think
>> about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to
>> Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who
>> frequent those worlds often display.
>>
>> What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to
>> laugh, "getting" that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does*
>> equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In
> other
>> words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little.
>>
>> Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who
>> feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth
> but
>> one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so
>> important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the
>> level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of
> Monkees
>> fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they
> appear
>> to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image.
>> Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to
>> have done.
>>
>> The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this
>> forum *is* opinion, not "truth") is that the metaphor just *nails* it.
>> They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a
> religion,
>> just as they turned "20 minutes twice a day" into several hours a day,
>> and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives
>> there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as
>> monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed.
>>
>> Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And
> I
>> suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to
>> having a little fun poked at them.
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
>>> Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that
> I
>>> find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching
> for
>> a
>>> metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
>>> same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
>> with
>>> such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along.
> Consider
>>> this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.  :-)
>>>
>>> Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
>> Monkees
>>> fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
>> glory
>>> days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
>> argue
>>> about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
>> esoteric
>>> meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
>>> Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
>> because
>>> however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
>>> Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the
> Monkees
>>> that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
>> other
>>> musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
>>> heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
>>> still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years
> after
>>> the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
>>>
>>> And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[richardwillytexwilliams]

whynotnow7:
> Yeah, you're a real (yawn) bad-ass, Barry. 
> You are unable to have a discussion with 
> anyone about anything, and now that this is 
> widely recognized, you attempt to play the 
> only card you have left, supposedly relishing 
> the role of troll, button-pusher, and  
> misanthrope...
>
"The acts of those who have OCD may appear 
paranoid and potentially psychotic. However, OCD 
sufferers generally recognize their obsessions 
and compulsions as irrational, and may become 
further distressed by this realization..."

'Obsessive-compulsive disorder'
http://tinyurl.com/r37s7o

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[raunchydog]

Robin, you have quite a talent for removing the mask from slippery
characters. Kudos! Judy has calling Barry out for the same behavior for
years and he still doesn't get it. Never will.  A zebra doesn't change
its stripes.


  [http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Orange-jelly-Nailed-it.jpg]

http://youtu.be/1pAcfJQgxjE 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> The Barry Wright Syndrome
>
> Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja is
trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club
members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent
of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has
to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a
kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point
of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to convince
even himself that what he says is true.
>
> This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but
refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating
a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate
the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is
quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional
reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the
purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism.
Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never
thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really
believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my
point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, corroborate
this opinion?
>
> But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to
ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own
experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and
opinion that Barry expresses—we are mostly talking here about
matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e.
what has first drawn us into posting at FFL—is worth considering,
examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry drags in his
negative emotionality—I suppose he is oblivious to this—and lets
that drive his opinion. So that what—take this post here—happens
is that someone has said: "Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a
whore." The child of the woman who has thus been so characterized
wonders: "Is my mother really that unattractive, and is she prostituting
herself?"
>
> But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats
his insult, and then proceeds to act—through what follows in his
post—as if this description of the person does not need explanation
or defence; Barry Wright has said it; that is enough to make it true.
>
> Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it
out as so we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that
what he is asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the
merits of his point of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively,
reflexively ignores even the theoretical possibility that there is data
contradictory to his point of view; he merely ignores the very idea of
another, competing point of view. Barry is thus selectively biased in
this sense: Barry decides it serves his psychological needs to believe a
certain thing is one way; or rather he has a strong emotional need to
have the world appear a certain way to him. If he can pretend that it
does seem this way, then this enables him to project onto the world what
is most convenient for the perpetuation of his own undisciplined
predilections. Barry never has got beyond the simple act of: 1. I
experience x to be a certain way 2. I will insist that x must be the way
I experience x.
>
> Barry doesn't realize one basic thing about human beings: the mere
fact that you would like things to be seen in a way which conforms to
your need for them to be that way, cannot replace the work and effort
required to go from being predisposed—compelled somehow—to see
things a particular way, to deciding well, they must be that way. We, on
the other hand, have to see how it is reasonable to draw the same
conclusions as Barry has. But he deprives us of this opportunity, and
makes his own subjective consciousness the only arbiter of the matter:
we either trust him on this, or else we are unable to enter into the
context within which he has come to believe what he says is the case. If
only Barry Wright would contemplate: I despise anyone on FFL who tries
to argue on behalf of a point of view which is at odds with my own point
of view. Therefore I am just going to attack that point of view as if it
is stupid and indefensible—but I will never explain why this is so.
I will just go on repeating my own judgment, without ever attempting to
persuade, convince, much less convert, others to my point of view.
>
> Is this no

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[whynotnow7]

Yeah, you're a real (yawn) bad-ass, Barry. You are unable to have a discussion 
with anyone about anything, and now that this is widely recognized, you attempt 
to play the only card you have left, supposedly relishing the role of troll, 
button-pusher, and  misanthrope. Did you dress up as Freddy Lenz for Halloween 
too? 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think
> about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to
> Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who
> frequent those worlds often display.
> 
> What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to
> laugh, "getting" that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does*
> equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In other
> words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little.
> 
> Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who
> feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth but
> one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so
> important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the
> level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of Monkees
> fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they appear
> to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image.
> Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to
> have done.
> 
> The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this
> forum *is* opinion, not "truth") is that the metaphor just *nails* it.
> They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a religion,
> just as they turned "20 minutes twice a day" into several hours a day,
> and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives
> there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as
> monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed.
> 
> Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And I
> suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to
> having a little fun poked at them.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I
> > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for
> a
> > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
> with
> > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider
> > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.  :-)
> >
> > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
> Monkees
> > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
> glory
> > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
> argue
> > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
> esoteric
> > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
> because
> > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees
> > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
> other
> > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after
> > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> >
> > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > place.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> Then I saw your Fairy Field life post, now I'm a believer
> 
> I thought FFL was only true in fairy tales
> Meant for someone else but not for me.
> But FFL was out to get me
> That's the way it seemed.
> Disappointment haunted all my dreams.
> 
> Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer
> Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
> I couldn't leave the place if I tried.
> 
> I thought FFL was more or less a givin' thing,
> Seems the more I gave the less I got.
> What's the use in tryin'?
> All you get is pain.
> When I needed sunshine I got rain.
> 
> Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer
> Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
> 
> a true FFL believer...

See? Now THAT is a witty response. 

No call to argue, no implication that meru's POV (if
he even has one) is true or "truth," no putdowns or
insults. Just taking the melody and riffing on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think
> > about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to
> > Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who
> > frequent those worlds often display.
> >
> > What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to
> > laugh, "getting" that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does*
> > equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In
> other
> > words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little.
> >
> > Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who
> > feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth
> but
> > one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so
> > important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the
> > level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of
> Monkees
> > fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they
> appear
> > to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image.
> > Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to
> > have done.
> >
> > The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this
> > forum *is* opinion, not "truth") is that the metaphor just *nails* it.
> > They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a
> religion,
> > just as they turned "20 minutes twice a day" into several hours a day,
> > and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives
> > there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as
> > monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed.
> >
> > Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And
> I
> > suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to
> > having a little fun poked at them.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that
> I
> > > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching
> for
> > a
> > > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
> > with
> > > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along.
> Consider
> > > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.  :-)
> > >
> > > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
> > Monkees
> > > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
> > glory
> > > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
> > argue
> > > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
> > esoteric
> > > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
> > because
> > > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> > > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the
> Monkees
> > > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
> > other
> > > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> > > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> > > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years
> after
> > > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> > >
> > > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > > place.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[merudanda]

Then I saw your Fairy Field life post, now I'm a believer


I thought FFL was only true in fairy tales
Meant for someone else but not for me.
But FFL was out to get me
That's the way it seemed.
Disappointment haunted all my dreams.

Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
I couldn't leave the place if I tried.

I thought FFL was more or less a givin' thing,
Seems the more I gave the less I got.
What's the use in tryin'?
All you get is pain.
When I needed sunshine I got rain.

Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind.

a true FFL believer...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think
> about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to
> Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who
> frequent those worlds often display.
>
> What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to
> laugh, "getting" that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does*
> equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In
other
> words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little.
>
> Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who
> feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth
but
> one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so
> important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the
> level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of
Monkees
> fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they
appear
> to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image.
> Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to
> have done.
>
> The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this
> forum *is* opinion, not "truth") is that the metaphor just *nails* it.
> They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a
religion,
> just as they turned "20 minutes twice a day" into several hours a day,
> and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives
> there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as
> monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed.
>
> Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And
I
> suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to
> having a little fun poked at them.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that
I
> > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching
for
> a
> > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
> with
> > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along.
Consider
> > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.  :-)
> >
> > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
> Monkees
> > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
> glory
> > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
> argue
> > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
> esoteric
> > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
> because
> > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the
Monkees
> > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
> other
> > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years
after
> > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> >
> > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > place.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[merudanda]

lol
You MZ lives in limbs,
And looks through eyes not yours
With lovely yearning?
"Keeps grace," (abiding in the "sanctifying grace"):
"that keeps all his goings graces"?
  And denying now the "instress"ness, the shaping force within creatures
of nature and art at FFL, in contradiction to your previous insistence
that "inscape" was the essence of the postings at FFL  "landscape" by
quoting  Hopkins then and there?
Then and there the "inscaped" landscape markedly holding its most simple
and beautiful oneness up from the ground through a graceful swerve below
the spring of the branches up to the tops of the FFL timber. I saw the
"inscape" freshly, as if my mind were still growing, though now the eye
and the ear are for the most part shut. And instress, the "doing-be" of
turquoiseb(ee) the positing or pitching of his whole self in his
"selving" act of artistic will and "thisness"...  now cannot come.



Is there is one notable dead tree . . ? [:D]

Verbum dei clarescit in forma hominis,
Et ideo fulgemus cum illo,
Edificantes membra sui pulcri corporis.

Hildegard von Bingen: "Ordo Virtutem"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> The Barry Wright Syndrome
>
> Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja is
trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club
members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent
of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has
to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a
kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point
of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to convince
even himself that what he says is true.
>
> This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but
refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating
a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate
the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is
quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional
reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the
purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism.
Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never
thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really
believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my
point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, corroborate
this opinion?
>
> But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to
ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own
experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and
opinion that Barry expresses—we are mostly talking here about
matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e.
what has first drawn us into posting at FFL—is worth considering,
examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry drags in his
negative emotionality—I suppose he is oblivious to this—and lets
that drive his opinion. So that what—take this post here—happens
is that someone has said: "Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a
whore." The child of the woman who has thus been so characterized
wonders: "Is my mother really that unattractive, and is she prostituting
herself?"
>
> But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats
his insult, and then proceeds to act—through what follows in his
post—as if this description of the person does not need explanation
or defence; Barry Wright has said it; that is enough to make it true.
>
> Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it
out as so we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that
what he is asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the
merits of his point of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively,
reflexively ignores even the theoretical possibility that there is data
contradictory to his point of view; he merely ignores the very idea of
another, competing point of view. Barry is thus selectively biased in
this sense: Barry decides it serves his psychological needs to believe a
certain thing is one way; or rather he has a strong emotional need to
have the world appear a certain way to him. If he can pretend that it
does seem this way, then this enables him to project onto the world what
is most convenient for the perpetuation of his own undisciplined
predilections. Barry never has got beyond the simple act of: 1. I
experience x to be a certain way 2. I will insist that x must be the way
I experience x.
>
> Barry doesn't realize one basic thing about human beings: the mere
fact that you would like things to be seen in a way which conforms to
your need for them to be that way, cannot replace the work and effort
required to go from being predisposed—compelled somehow—to see
things a particular way, to deciding well, they must be that way. We, on
the other hand, have to see how it is r

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[turquoiseb]

Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think
about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to
Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who
frequent those worlds often display.

What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to
laugh, "getting" that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does*
equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In other
words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little.

Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who
feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth but
one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so
important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the
level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of Monkees
fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they appear
to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image.
Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to
have done.

The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this
forum *is* opinion, not "truth") is that the metaphor just *nails* it.
They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a religion,
just as they turned "20 minutes twice a day" into several hours a day,
and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives
there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as
monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed.

Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And I
suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to
having a little fun poked at them.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I
> find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for
a
> metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
with
> such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider
> this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.  :-)
>
> Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
Monkees
> fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
glory
> days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
argue
> about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
esoteric
> meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
because
> however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees
> that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
other
> musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after
> the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
>
> And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> place.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[obbajeeba]

Just copied the first song I saw on youtube with "Barry," in it. lol

Here is a Tibetan chant found only in the foothills beyond the foothills, over 
the river and yeah, that there place where this is, "No More Singing."
http://soundcloud.com/deadtrooper/dead-trooper-cynicist-05-no


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  wrote:
>
> Personally, my style:
> 
> ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7gMkiOPSeA
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcd3XuQwDQQ
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> > >
> > > The Barry Wright Syndrome
> > > 
> > > Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja is trained 
> > > moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club members. He 
> > > then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent of reality. 
> > > But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has to prove 
> > > this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a kind of 
> > > totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point of view, 
> > > without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to convince even 
> > > himself that what he says is true. 
> > > 
> > > This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but 
> > > refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating 
> > > a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate 
> > > the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is 
> > > quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional 
> > > reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the 
> > > purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism. 
> > > Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never 
> > > thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really 
> > > believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my point 
> > > of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, corroborate this 
> > > opinion?
> > > 
> > > But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to 
> > > ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own 
> > > experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and 
> > > opinion that Barry expresses—we are mostly talking here about matters 
> > > pertaining to TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e. what has 
> > > first drawn us into posting at FFL—is worth considering, examined 
> > > objectively; but the problem is this: Barry drags in his negative 
> > > emotionality—I suppose he is oblivious to this—and lets that drive his 
> > > opinion. So that what—take this post here—happens is that someone has 
> > > said: "Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a whore." The child of 
> > > the woman who has thus been so characterized wonders: "Is my mother 
> > > really that unattractive, and is she prostituting herself?"
> > > 
> > > But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats 
> > > his insult, and then proceeds to act—through what follows in his post—as 
> > > if this description of the person does not need explanation or defence; 
> > > Barry Wright has said it; that is enough to make it true.
> > > 
> > > Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it out 
> > > as so we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that what 
> > > he is asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the merits 
> > > of his point of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively, reflexively 
> > > ignores even the theoretical possibility that there is data contradictory 
> > > to his point of view; he merely ignores the very idea of another, 
> > > competing point of view. Barry is thus selectively biased in this sense: 
> > > Barry decides it serves his psychological needs to believe a certain 
> > > thing is one way; or rather he has a strong emotional need to have the 
> > > world appear a certain way to him. If he can pretend that it does seem 
> > > this way, then this enables him to project onto the world what is most 
> > > convenient for the perpetuation of his own undisciplined predilections. 
> > > Barry never has got beyond the simple act of: 1. I experience x to be a 
> > > certain way 2. I will insist that x must be the way I experience x. 
> > > 
> > > Barry doesn't realize one basic thing about human beings: the mere fact 
> > > that you would like things to be seen in a way which conforms to your 
> > > need for them to be that way, cannot replace the work and effort required 
> > > to go from being predisposed—compelled somehow—to see things a particular 
> > > way, to deciding well, they must be that way. We, on the other hand, have 
> > > to see how it is reasonable to draw the same conclusions as Barry has. 
> > > But he deprives us of this opportunity, and makes his own subjective 
> > > consciousness th

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[seventhray1]

Personally, my style:

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7gMkiOPSeA

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcd3XuQwDQQ
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
> >
> > The Barry Wright Syndrome
> > 
> > Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja is trained 
> > moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club members. He 
> > then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent of reality. But 
> > you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has to prove this, or 
> > at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a kind of totalitarian of 
> > the mind: he insists on the truth of his point of view, without seemingly 
> > any capacity or even inclination to convince even himself that what he says 
> > is true. 
> > 
> > This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but refusing 
> > to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating a strong 
> > opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate the 
> > reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is quite 
> > incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional 
> > reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the purpose 
> > of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism. Barry feels 
> > entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never thinks: I must 
> > really experience this is true; or even: do I really believe that reality 
> > will somehow, either in the articulation of my point of view, or in the 
> > culmination of having expressed it, corroborate this opinion?
> > 
> > But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to 
> > ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own 
> > experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and opinion 
> > that Barry expresses—we are mostly talking here about matters pertaining to 
> > TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e. what has first drawn us 
> > into posting at FFL—is worth considering, examined objectively; but the 
> > problem is this: Barry drags in his negative emotionality—I suppose he is 
> > oblivious to this—and lets that drive his opinion. So that what—take this 
> > post here—happens is that someone has said: "Your mother is ugly and she 
> > behaves like a whore." The child of the woman who has thus been so 
> > characterized wonders: "Is my mother really that unattractive, and is she 
> > prostituting herself?"
> > 
> > But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats his 
> > insult, and then proceeds to act—through what follows in his post—as if 
> > this description of the person does not need explanation or defence; Barry 
> > Wright has said it; that is enough to make it true.
> > 
> > Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it out as 
> > so we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that what he 
> > is asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the merits of his 
> > point of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively, reflexively ignores even 
> > the theoretical possibility that there is data contradictory to his point 
> > of view; he merely ignores the very idea of another, competing point of 
> > view. Barry is thus selectively biased in this sense: Barry decides it 
> > serves his psychological needs to believe a certain thing is one way; or 
> > rather he has a strong emotional need to have the world appear a certain 
> > way to him. If he can pretend that it does seem this way, then this enables 
> > him to project onto the world what is most convenient for the perpetuation 
> > of his own undisciplined predilections. Barry never has got beyond the 
> > simple act of: 1. I experience x to be a certain way 2. I will insist that 
> > x must be the way I experience x. 
> > 
> > Barry doesn't realize one basic thing about human beings: the mere fact 
> > that you would like things to be seen in a way which conforms to your need 
> > for them to be that way, cannot replace the work and effort required to go 
> > from being predisposed—compelled somehow—to see things a particular way, to 
> > deciding well, they must be that way. We, on the other hand, have to see 
> > how it is reasonable to draw the same conclusions as Barry has. But he 
> > deprives us of this opportunity, and makes his own subjective consciousness 
> > the only arbiter of the matter: we either trust him on this, or else we are 
> > unable to enter into the context within which he has come to believe what 
> > he says is the case. If only Barry Wright would contemplate: I despise 
> > anyone on FFL who tries to argue on behalf of a point of view which is at 
> > odds with my own point of view. Therefore I am just going to attack that 
> > point of view as if it is stupid and indefensible—but I will never explain 
> > why this is so. I will just go 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > >
> > > You could not have picked a better metaphor!
> > 
> > It's not exact. After all, the Monkees may have had 
> > a bigger impact on the course of human history than 
> > Maharishi did. They gave Jimi Hendrix his first US 
> > tour, as their opening act. Until Jimi flipped them 
> > off onstage and left the tour, that is. 
> 
> How many records did they actually sell? : )

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_records_did_the_Monkees_sell

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[maskedzebra]

As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame;
As tumbled over rim in roundy wells
Stones ring; like each tucked string tells, each hung bell's
Bow swung finds the tongue to fling out broad its name;
Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves—goes its self; *myself* it speaks and spells,
Crying *What I do is me: for that I came*.

GMH

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > You could not have picked a better metaphor!
> 
> It's not exact. After all, the Monkees may have had 
> a bigger impact on the course of human history than 
> Maharishi did. They gave Jimi Hendrix his first US 
> tour, as their opening act. Until Jimi flipped them 
> off onstage and left the tour, that is. 
> 
> > One day, I may share the true story of The Monkees and 
> > the stolen limo, and Mutiny at the Bounty. But not right 
> > now. 
> 
> Your call. Sounds fascinating. Does it involve tawdry
> incidents with groupies? Maharishi's tours did.
> 
> :-)
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I
> > > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for a
> > > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up with
> > > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider
> > > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.  :-)
> > > 
> > > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical Monkees
> > > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the glory
> > > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They argue
> > > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep esoteric
> > > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, because
> > > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> > > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees
> > > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any other
> > > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> > > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> > > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after
> > > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> > > 
> > > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > > place.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[obbajeeba]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > You could not have picked a better metaphor!
> 
> It's not exact. After all, the Monkees may have had 
> a bigger impact on the course of human history than 
> Maharishi did. They gave Jimi Hendrix his first US 
> tour, as their opening act. Until Jimi flipped them 
> off onstage and left the tour, that is. 
> 

How many records did they actually sell? : )

> > One day, I may share the true story of The Monkees and 
> > the stolen limo, and Mutiny at the Bounty. But not right 
> > now. 
> 
> Your call. Sounds fascinating. Does it involve tawdry
> incidents with groupies? Maharishi's tours did.
> 
> :-)

Groupies? I don't think the Monkees had any at this one "comeback," show. 
Didn't see any and the ordeal went on to the wee hours in the morning. Bhahaha. 
LMAO. Really. It does involve a Tarzan yell, a contest and a beautiful handmade 
replica of a John Lennon Richenbacker. LOL

> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I
> > > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for a
> > > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up with
> > > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider
> > > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.  :-)
> > > 
> > > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical Monkees
> > > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the glory
> > > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They argue
> > > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep esoteric
> > > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, because
> > > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> > > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees
> > > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any other
> > > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> > > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> > > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after
> > > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> > > 
> > > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > > place.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> You could not have picked a better metaphor!

It's not exact. After all, the Monkees may have had 
a bigger impact on the course of human history than 
Maharishi did. They gave Jimi Hendrix his first US 
tour, as their opening act. Until Jimi flipped them 
off onstage and left the tour, that is. 

> One day, I may share the true story of The Monkees and 
> the stolen limo, and Mutiny at the Bounty. But not right 
> now. 

Your call. Sounds fascinating. Does it involve tawdry
incidents with groupies? Maharishi's tours did.

:-)

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I
> > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for a
> > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up with
> > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider
> > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.  :-)
> > 
> > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical Monkees
> > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the glory
> > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They argue
> > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep esoteric
> > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, because
> > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees
> > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any other
> > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after
> > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> > 
> > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > place.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[Bob Price]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88ft_enkr9c



From: maskedzebra 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 8:08:14 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor



The Barry Wright Syndrome

Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja is trained 
moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club members. He then 
asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent of reality. But you see, 
he never conceives of the responsibility he has to prove this, or at least even 
try to make his case. No, Barry is a kind of totalitarian of the mind: he 
insists on the truth of his point of view, without seemingly any capacity or 
even inclination to convince even himself that what he says is true. 

This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but refusing to 
argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating a strong 
opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate the 
reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is quite 
incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional reactiveness, 
dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the purpose of expressing his 
own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism. Barry feels entitled to say 
something is a certain way, and he never thinks: I must really experience this 
is true; or even: do I really believe that reality will somehow, either in the 
articulation of my point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, 
corroborate this opinion?

But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to ridicule, 
to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own experience of 
being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and opinion that Barry 
expresses—we are mostly talking here about matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi 
Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e. what has first drawn us into posting at 
FFL—is worth considering, examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry 
drags in his negative emotionality—I suppose he is oblivious to this—and lets 
that drive his opinion. So that what—take this post here—happens is that 
someone has said: "Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a whore." The child 
of the woman who has thus been so characterized wonders: "Is my mother really 
that unattractive, and is she prostituting herself?"

But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats his 
insult, and then proceeds to act—through what follows in his post—as if this 
description of the person does not need explanation or defence; Barry Wright 
has said it; that is enough to make it true.

Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it out as so 
we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that what he is 
asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the merits of his point 
of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively, reflexively ignores even the 
theoretical possibility that there is data contradictory to his point of view; 
he merely ignores the very idea of another, competing point of view. Barry is 
thus selectively biased in this sense: Barry decides it serves his 
psychological needs to believe a certain thing is one way; or rather he has a 
strong emotional need to have the world appear a certain way to him. If he can 
pretend that it does seem this way, then this enables him to project onto the 
world what is most convenient for the perpetuation of his own undisciplined 
predilections. Barry never has got beyond the simple act of: 1. I experience x 
to be a certain way 2. I will insist that x must be
 the way I experience x. 

Barry doesn't realize one basic thing about human beings: the mere fact that 
you would like things to be seen in a way which conforms to your need for them 
to be that way, cannot replace the work and effort required to go from being 
predisposed—compelled somehow—to see things a particular way, to deciding well, 
they must be that way. We, on the other hand, have to see how it is reasonable 
to draw the same conclusions as Barry has. But he deprives us of this 
opportunity, and makes his own subjective consciousness the only arbiter of the 
matter: we either trust him on this, or else we are unable to enter into the 
context within which he has come to believe what he says is the case. If only 
Barry Wright would contemplate: I despise anyone on FFL who tries to argue on 
behalf of a point of view which is at odds with my own point of view. Therefore 
I am just going to attack that point of view as if it is stupid and 
indefensible—but I will never explain
 why this is so. I will just go on repeating my own judgment, without ever 
attempting to persuade, convince, much less convert, others to my point of view.

Is this not clearly a dereliction of moral and intellectual duty? Barry Wright 
doesn't think so. He has said that m

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[obbajeeba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcd3XuQwDQQ

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> The Barry Wright Syndrome
> 
> Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja is trained 
> moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club members. He then 
> asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent of reality. But you 
> see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has to prove this, or at 
> least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a kind of totalitarian of the 
> mind: he insists on the truth of his point of view, without seemingly any 
> capacity or even inclination to convince even himself that what he says is 
> true. 
> 
> This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but refusing 
> to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating a strong 
> opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate the 
> reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is quite 
> incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional 
> reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the purpose 
> of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism. Barry feels 
> entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never thinks: I must 
> really experience this is true; or even: do I really believe that reality 
> will somehow, either in the articulation of my point of view, or in the 
> culmination of having expressed it, corroborate this opinion?
> 
> But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to ridicule, 
> to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own experience of 
> being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and opinion that Barry 
> expresses—we are mostly talking here about matters pertaining to TM, 
> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e. what has first drawn us into 
> posting at FFL—is worth considering, examined objectively; but the problem is 
> this: Barry drags in his negative emotionality—I suppose he is oblivious to 
> this—and lets that drive his opinion. So that what—take this post 
> here—happens is that someone has said: "Your mother is ugly and she behaves 
> like a whore." The child of the woman who has thus been so characterized 
> wonders: "Is my mother really that unattractive, and is she prostituting 
> herself?"
> 
> But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats his 
> insult, and then proceeds to act—through what follows in his post—as if this 
> description of the person does not need explanation or defence; Barry Wright 
> has said it; that is enough to make it true.
> 
> Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it out as so 
> we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that what he is 
> asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the merits of his 
> point of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively, reflexively ignores even the 
> theoretical possibility that there is data contradictory to his point of 
> view; he merely ignores the very idea of another, competing point of view. 
> Barry is thus selectively biased in this sense: Barry decides it serves his 
> psychological needs to believe a certain thing is one way; or rather he has a 
> strong emotional need to have the world appear a certain way to him. If he 
> can pretend that it does seem this way, then this enables him to project onto 
> the world what is most convenient for the perpetuation of his own 
> undisciplined predilections. Barry never has got beyond the simple act of: 1. 
> I experience x to be a certain way 2. I will insist that x must be the way I 
> experience x. 
> 
> Barry doesn't realize one basic thing about human beings: the mere fact that 
> you would like things to be seen in a way which conforms to your need for 
> them to be that way, cannot replace the work and effort required to go from 
> being predisposed—compelled somehow—to see things a particular way, to 
> deciding well, they must be that way. We, on the other hand, have to see how 
> it is reasonable to draw the same conclusions as Barry has. But he deprives 
> us of this opportunity, and makes his own subjective consciousness the only 
> arbiter of the matter: we either trust him on this, or else we are unable to 
> enter into the context within which he has come to believe what he says is 
> the case. If only Barry Wright would contemplate: I despise anyone on FFL who 
> tries to argue on behalf of a point of view which is at odds with my own 
> point of view. Therefore I am just going to attack that point of view as if 
> it is stupid and indefensible—but I will never explain why this is so. I will 
> just go on repeating my own judgment, without ever attempting to persuade, 
> convince, much less convert, others to my point of view.
> 
> Is this not clearly a dereliction of moral and intellectual duty? Barry 
> Wright doesn't think so. He has said that most persons here in FF

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[maskedzebra]

The Barry Wright Syndrome

Barry decides he has a point of view about something—e.g. Puja is trained 
moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club members. He then 
asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent of reality. But you see, 
he never conceives of the responsibility he has to prove this, or at least even 
try to make his case. No, Barry is a kind of totalitarian of the mind: he 
insists on the truth of his point of view, without seemingly any capacity or 
even inclination to convince even himself that what he says is true. 

This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but refusing to 
argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating a strong 
opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate the 
reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is quite 
incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional reactiveness, 
dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the purpose of expressing his 
own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism. Barry feels entitled to say 
something is a certain way, and he never thinks: I must really experience this 
is true; or even: do I really believe that reality will somehow, either in the 
articulation of my point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, 
corroborate this opinion?

But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to ridicule, 
to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own experience of 
being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and opinion that Barry 
expresses—we are mostly talking here about matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi 
Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e. what has first drawn us into posting at 
FFL—is worth considering, examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry 
drags in his negative emotionality—I suppose he is oblivious to this—and lets 
that drive his opinion. So that what—take this post here—happens is that 
someone has said: "Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a whore." The child 
of the woman who has thus been so characterized wonders: "Is my mother really 
that unattractive, and is she prostituting herself?"

But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats his 
insult, and then proceeds to act—through what follows in his post—as if this 
description of the person does not need explanation or defence; Barry Wright 
has said it; that is enough to make it true.

Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it out as so 
we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that what he is 
asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the merits of his point 
of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively, reflexively ignores even the 
theoretical possibility that there is data contradictory to his point of view; 
he merely ignores the very idea of another, competing point of view. Barry is 
thus selectively biased in this sense: Barry decides it serves his 
psychological needs to believe a certain thing is one way; or rather he has a 
strong emotional need to have the world appear a certain way to him. If he can 
pretend that it does seem this way, then this enables him to project onto the 
world what is most convenient for the perpetuation of his own undisciplined 
predilections. Barry never has got beyond the simple act of: 1. I experience x 
to be a certain way 2. I will insist that x must be the way I experience x. 

Barry doesn't realize one basic thing about human beings: the mere fact that 
you would like things to be seen in a way which conforms to your need for them 
to be that way, cannot replace the work and effort required to go from being 
predisposed—compelled somehow—to see things a particular way, to deciding well, 
they must be that way. We, on the other hand, have to see how it is reasonable 
to draw the same conclusions as Barry has. But he deprives us of this 
opportunity, and makes his own subjective consciousness the only arbiter of the 
matter: we either trust him on this, or else we are unable to enter into the 
context within which he has come to believe what he says is the case. If only 
Barry Wright would contemplate: I despise anyone on FFL who tries to argue on 
behalf of a point of view which is at odds with my own point of view. Therefore 
I am just going to attack that point of view as if it is stupid and 
indefensible—but I will never explain why this is so. I will just go on 
repeating my own judgment, without ever attempting to persuade, convince, much 
less convert, others to my point of view.

Is this not clearly a dereliction of moral and intellectual duty? Barry Wright 
doesn't think so. He has said that most persons here in FFL behave like 
jealous, intolerant Monkees Fan Club members—who don't want to hear any other 
kind of music. Well, Barry has said this. The question is: Is it *true*?

Well, Barry has not permitted any freedom within which he has expressed this 
judgment 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[Bob Price]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBIC8JTQMMQ&feature=related



From: seventhray1 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 5:12:16 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor





Which I guess means that you post mostly in a vacuum, and then respond
mostly to those posts, which is also sort of funny.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" 
wrote:
>
>
> Which is made even a little more humorous in that you are on record of
> not reading probably 60% (by volume) of the posts here.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You realize of course that you are among the top posters. Probably
one
> > the top three. Based on this you might say that you participate just
> to
> > make sure that people are engaging in the behavior you describe
below.
> > You wouldn't want to miss anything. I think that is a sign of
> addictive
> > behavior.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one
that
> I
> > > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching
> for
> > a
> > > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
> > with
> > > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along.
> Consider
> > > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.
:-)
> > >
> > > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
> > Monkees
> > > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
> > glory
> > > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
> > argue
> > > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
> > esoteric
> > > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
> > because
> > > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not
the
> > > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the
> Monkees
> > > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
> > other
> > > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as
the
> > > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club
is
> > > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years
> after
> > > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> > >
> > > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > > place.
> > >
> >
>


   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[Bob Price]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehK0WhPsNUw



From: seventhray1 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 4:58:47 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor



You realize of course that you are among the top posters.  Probably one the top 
three.  Based on this you might say that you participate just to make sure that 
people are engaging in the behavior you describe below.  You wouldn't want to 
miss anything.  I think that is a sign of addictive behavior.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I
> find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for a
> metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up with
> such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider
> this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor. :-)
> 
> Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical Monkees
> fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the glory
> days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They argue
> about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep esoteric
> meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, because
> however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees
> that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any other
> musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after
> the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> 
> And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> place.
>

   

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[seventhray1]

Which I guess means that you post mostly in a vacuum, and then respond
mostly to those posts, which is also sort of funny.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" 
wrote:
>
>
> Which is made even a little more humorous in that you are on record of
> not reading probably 60% (by volume) of the posts here.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You realize of course that you are among the top posters. Probably
one
> > the top three. Based on this you might say that you participate just
> to
> > make sure that people are engaging in the behavior you describe
below.
> > You wouldn't want to miss anything. I think that is a sign of
> addictive
> > behavior.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one
that
> I
> > > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching
> for
> > a
> > > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
> > with
> > > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along.
> Consider
> > > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.
:-)
> > >
> > > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
> > Monkees
> > > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
> > glory
> > > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
> > argue
> > > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
> > esoteric
> > > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
> > because
> > > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not
the
> > > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the
> Monkees
> > > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
> > other
> > > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as
the
> > > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club
is
> > > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years
> after
> > > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> > >
> > > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > > place.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[seventhray1]

Which is made even a little more humorous in that you are on record of
not reading probably 60% (by volume) of the posts here.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" 
wrote:
>
>
> You realize of course that you are among the top posters. Probably one
> the top three. Based on this you might say that you participate just
to
> make sure that people are engaging in the behavior you describe below.
> You wouldn't want to miss anything. I think that is a sign of
addictive
> behavior.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that
I
> > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching
for
> a
> > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
> with
> > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along.
Consider
> > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor. :-)
> >
> > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
> Monkees
> > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
> glory
> > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
> argue
> > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
> esoteric
> > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
> because
> > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the
Monkees
> > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
> other
> > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years
after
> > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> >
> > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> > place.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[seventhray1]

You realize of course that you are among the top posters.  Probably one
the top three.  Based on this you might say that you participate just to
make sure that people are engaging in the behavior you describe below. 
You wouldn't want to miss anything.  I think that is a sign of addictive
behavior.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I
> find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for
a
> metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up
with
> such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider
> this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor. :-)
>
> Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical
Monkees
> fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the
glory
> days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They
argue
> about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep
esoteric
> meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down,
because
> however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees
> that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any
other
> musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after
> the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
>
> And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> place.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor

[obbajeeba]

You could not have picked a better metaphor!

One day, I may share the true story of The Monkees and the stolen limo, and 
Mutiny at the Bounty. But not right now. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I
> find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for a
> metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the
> same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up with
> such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider
> this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor.  :-)
> 
> Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical Monkees
> fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the glory
> days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They argue
> about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep esoteric
> meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the
> Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, because
> however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the
> Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees
> that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any other
> musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the
> heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is
> still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after
> the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark.
> 
> And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first
> place.
>