Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
On 1/6/2014 9:49 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't care how many women Maharishi slept with, his method of teaching TM was a work of genius. Who or how many women MMY has slept with has nothing to do with whether or not TM works - it's all up to the individual. In fact, MMY has nothing to do with transcending in TM. Confusion arises from erroneously identifying words, objects, and ideas with one another; knowledge of the cries of all creatures comes through perfect discipline of the distinctions between them. - Y.S. 3.17
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
I should credit Lawson for this extremely apt observation. I wrote: When you think about it, the amazing thing about TM is not that it's so easy to learn and practice, but that it can be taught at all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Who or how many women MMY has slept with has nothing to do with whether or not TM works - it's all up to the individual. In fact, MMY has nothing to do with transcending in TM. Confusion arises from erroneously identifying words, objects, and ideas with one another; knowledge of the cries of all creatures comes through perfect discipline of the distinctions between them. - Y.S. 3.17 Thanks Richard - An excellent point. All of the emphasis on the technique's founder probably has to do with TM's recent revival, and that many people experienced Maharishi personally. Who knows, perhaps there were articles written about Thomas Edison's transgressions, when his light-bulb first became popular?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Whoever said the number of women MMY slept with has anything to do with whether TM works?? I must have missed that. Who or how many women MMY has slept with has nothing to do with whether or not TM works - it's all up to the individual. In fact, MMY has nothing to do with transcending in TM. Confusion arises from erroneously identifying words, objects, and ideas with one another; knowledge of the cries of all creatures comes through perfect discipline of the distinctions between them. - Y.S. 3.17 Thanks Richard - An excellent point. All of the emphasis on the technique's founder probably has to do with TM's recent revival, and that many people experienced Maharishi personally. Who knows, perhaps there were articles written about Thomas Edison's transgressions, when his light-bulb first became popular?
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Miguel de Molinos was very popular with laymen and women. The reason he was condemned by the Church was because he was giving people a method of salvation that bypassed the Church hierarchy. (There were other contemporary Christians teachers that taught similar methods so he didn't emerge out of a vacuum.) His classic work was The Spiritual Guide which was an influential best-seller. Archbishop Fénelon was heavily indebted to it which brought him into conflict with other Church elders. Molinos' most famous disciple was French lady Madame Guyon (1648-1717) whose works were also best-sellers and who took the Quietist approach to its logical conclusion (and so was also condemned by the Church). Her autobiography is considered a classic of French literature. If Quietism had emerged triumphant the history of the Catholic Church would have been very different indeed. No one in the western world would have needed a maharishi from India to awaken them to the inner life so we have 350 years to catch up on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The game is afoot again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Just finished watching the second episode in the new series of Sherlock and I can inform FFLifers it was the most self-indulgent pile of crap I've ever witnessed on TV. Two-thirds of the story was devoted to Sherlock and Watson's relationship with some cringe-worthy attempts at humour and generous dollops of mawkish buddy-bonding. The third segment devoted to an actual attempt at crime-solving was leaden and unconvincing. You have been warned - ignore any favourable reviews.. I see that you're not alone in feeling this way, given some of the reviews. But I think you've missed the *cause* of why you feel that way. This episode was not cringe-worthy but cringe-inducing. Many people get supremely uncomfortable watching social awkwardness and ineptness, even if it's just on a TV screen. I have no idea why the creators of Sherlock chose to create an entire hour and a half of social discomfort. Maybe it was a lapse, maybe it ties into some future plot point in their long game. Dunno. I thought parts of it were OK, and that some of the funny parts were, in fact, funny. Others, not so much. I'm not sure how this episode will tie into the rest of the series, or even if it will. It seemed to be an attempt to humanize someone who even describes *himself* as a high-functioning sociopath. It's not as if the episode was written by someone without a track record. The fellow who wrote it also wrote The Reichenbach Fall (last season's final episode, which was strong) and The Blind Banker (which wasn't one of my faves). Maybe they did it for a lark. Then again, maybe the creators went this route simply to fuck with the audience and show them how attached *they* had become to the high-functioning sociopath, and how uncomfortable they get when he changes, even a little.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The game is afoot again
Or turq it could be that the writer is simply being a creative artist and playing with the material, the character. OTOH, I've read several authors who say that at some point they really don't have much to say about how a character acts, that it's as if the character has its own life, its own internal integrity, its own path of unfolding. And the writer simply records, sort of going along for the ride! On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:46 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Just finished watching the second episode in the new series of Sherlock and I can inform FFLifers it was the most self-indulgent pile of crap I've ever witnessed on TV. Two-thirds of the story was devoted to Sherlock and Watson's relationship with some cringe-worthy attempts at humour and generous dollops of mawkish buddy-bonding. The third segment devoted to an actual attempt at crime-solving was leaden and unconvincing. You have been warned - ignore any favourable reviews.. I see that you're not alone in feeling this way, given some of the reviews. But I think you've missed the *cause* of why you feel that way. This episode was not cringe-worthy but cringe-inducing. Many people get supremely uncomfortable watching social awkwardness and ineptness, even if it's just on a TV screen. I have no idea why the creators of Sherlock chose to create an entire hour and a half of social discomfort. Maybe it was a lapse, maybe it ties into some future plot point in their long game. Dunno. I thought parts of it were OK, and that some of the funny parts were, in fact, funny. Others, not so much. I'm not sure how this episode will tie into the rest of the series, or even if it will. It seemed to be an attempt to humanize someone who even describes *himself* as a high-functioning sociopath. It's not as if the episode was written by someone without a track record. The fellow who wrote it also wrote The Reichenbach Fall (last season's final episode, which was strong) and The Blind Banker (which wasn't one of my faves). Maybe they did it for a lark. Then again, maybe the creators went this route simply to fuck with the audience and show them how attached *they* had become to the high-functioning sociopath, and how uncomfortable they get when he changes, even a little.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The game is afoot again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Or turq it could be that the writer is simply being a creative artist and playing with the material, the character. OTOH, I've read several authors who say that at some point they really don't have much to say about how a character acts, that it's as if the character has its own life, its own internal integrity, its own path of unfolding. And the writer simply records, sort of going along for the ride! Whatever. It could be just that -- a change-up pitch thrown out to confuse the batter. It IS interesting, however, to see all the critical reaction -- some of it near-hysterical -- to nothing more than showing narcissistic, sociopathic Sherlock Holmes, master of Being In Control, acting like a bumbling oaf and being stumped by a rather simple plot. (Heck, even *I* figured out what was up and who the villain was as soon as the wedding party began.) Audiences who hero-worship are notoriously fickle when someone presents a hero they've fixated on as infallible and always in control as...uh...fallible and...uh...not. We saw this in one of Clint Eastwood's early roles, in The Beguiled. Audiences had by then gotten used to seeing the always in control Clint -- as Rowdy Yates in Rawhide, as the Man With No Name in A Fistful Of Dollars, and For A Few Dollars More and The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly, as the stand-up guy in Hang 'Em High and Coogan's Bluff, and as a war hero in Kelly's Heroes. Then comes The Beguiled, and he not only loses out, he loses to a house full of women. The movie BOMBED at the box office. People HATED it. It was as if they weren't about to allow someone they had projected all their hero fantasies onto to ever become anything but. I would suggest that the same thing is going on for some of these people freaking out at seeing Sherlock Holmes bumble his way through trying to act like a human being for once. They just won't stand for it. It's almost as if they're like TMers worshiping a narcissopath they'd put up on a pedestal for being even more stuck in his head they they are and freaking out when he's revealed as rather less than heroic. :-) It's also interesting to see that the meanest and nastiest of the mean, nasty reviews of this episode come from women. It's like listening to guys who have been forced by their girlfriends to watch a chick flick going on and on about how horrible it was. :-) All in all, I didn't think it was a terribly strong episode, but there have been weak episodes in this series before, and it's not only survived but prospered in spite of the occasional lapse. I suspect it will again. It may even turn out that the friendship for Watson that Holmes has been forced to admit in this episode will become crucial in the next episode, and thus this whole episode is a set-up. Who knows? It's just a TV show. Just like FFL is just an Internet chat room. Who could possibly get their panties in a twist over something said in an Internet chat room? :-) On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:46 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Just finished watching the second episode in the new series of Sherlock and I can inform FFLifers it was the most self-indulgent pile of crap I've ever witnessed on TV. Two-thirds of the story was devoted to Sherlock and Watson's relationship with some cringe-worthy attempts at humour and generous dollops of mawkish buddy-bonding. The third segment devoted to an actual attempt at crime-solving was leaden and unconvincing. You have been warned - ignore any favourable reviews.. I see that you're not alone in feeling this way, given some of the reviews. But I think you've missed the *cause* of why you feel that way. This episode was not cringe-worthy but cringe-inducing. Many people get supremely uncomfortable watching social awkwardness and ineptness, even if it's just on a TV screen. I have no idea why the creators of Sherlock chose to create an entire hour and a half of social discomfort. Maybe it was a lapse, maybe it ties into some future plot point in their long game. Dunno. I thought parts of it were OK, and that some of the funny parts were, in fact, funny. Others, not so much. I'm not sure how this episode will tie into the rest of the series, or even if it will. It seemed to be an attempt to humanize someone who even describes *himself* as a high-functioning sociopath. It's not as if the episode was written by someone without a track record. The fellow who wrote it also wrote The Reichenbach Fall (last season's final episode, which was strong) and The Blind Banker (which wasn't one of my faves). Maybe they did it for a lark. Then again, maybe the creators went this route simply to fuck with the audience and show them how attached *they* had become to the high-functioning sociopath, and how uncomfortable they get when he changes, even a little.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The game is afoot again
You mean, the way you got your panties in a twist a few days ago because people you don't like had had the nerve to address posts to you? ;-) Just like FFL is just an Internet chat room. Who could possibly get their panties in a twist over something said in an Internet chat room? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The game is afoot again
Never fear, Helix will soon be here. ;-) First 15 minutes is on Syfy.com On 01/06/2014 04:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Just finished watching the second episode in the new series of Sherlock and I can inform FFLifers it was the most self-indulgent pile of crap I've ever witnessed on TV. Two-thirds of the story was devoted to Sherlock and Watson's relationship with some cringe-worthy attempts at humour and generous dollops of mawkish buddy-bonding. The third segment devoted to an actual attempt at crime-solving was leaden and unconvincing. You have been warned - ignore any favourable reviews.. */I see that you're not alone in feeling this way, given some of the reviews. But I think you've missed the *cause* of why you feel that way. This episode was not cringe-worthy but cringe-inducing. Many people get supremely uncomfortable watching social awkwardness and ineptness, even if it's just on a TV screen. I have no idea why the creators of Sherlock chose to create an entire hour and a half of social discomfort. Maybe it was a lapse, maybe it ties into some future plot point in their long game. Dunno. I thought parts of it were OK, and that some of the funny parts were, in fact, funny. Others, not so much. I'm not sure how this episode will tie into the rest of the series, or even if it will. It seemed to be an attempt to humanize someone who even describes *himself* as a high-functioning sociopath. It's not as if the episode was written by someone without a track record. The fellow who wrote it also wrote The Reichenbach Fall (last season's final episode, which was strong) and The Blind Banker (which wasn't one of my faves). Maybe they did it for a lark. Then again, maybe the creators went this route simply to fuck with the audience and show them how attached *they* had become to the high-functioning sociopath, and how uncomfortable they get when he changes, even a little. /*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The game is afoot again
OTOH, turq, these TV shows, forums, etc. just might be an easier way for people to burn off some negative karma. On Monday, January 6, 2014 7:29 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Or turq it could be that the writer is simply being a creative artist and playing with the material, the character. OTOH, I've read several authors who say that at some point they really don't have much to say about how a character acts, that it's as if the character has its own life, its own internal integrity, its own path of unfolding. And the writer simply records, sort of going along for the ride! Whatever. It could be just that -- a change-up pitch thrown out to confuse the batter. It IS interesting, however, to see all the critical reaction -- some of it near-hysterical -- to nothing more than showing narcissistic, sociopathic Sherlock Holmes, master of Being In Control, acting like a bumbling oaf and being stumped by a rather simple plot. (Heck, even *I* figured out what was up and who the villain was as soon as the wedding party began.) Audiences who hero-worship are notoriously fickle when someone presents a hero they've fixated on as infallible and always in control as...uh...fallible and...uh...not. We saw this in one of Clint Eastwood's early roles, in The Beguiled. Audiences had by then gotten used to seeing the always in control Clint -- as Rowdy Yates in Rawhide, as the Man With No Name in A Fistful Of Dollars, and For A Few Dollars More and The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly, as the stand-up guy in Hang 'Em High and Coogan's Bluff, and as a war hero in Kelly's Heroes. Then comes The Beguiled, and he not only loses out, he loses to a house full of women. The movie BOMBED at the box office. People HATED it. It was as if they weren't about to allow someone they had projected all their hero fantasies onto to ever become anything but. I would suggest that the same thing is going on for some of these people freaking out at seeing Sherlock Holmes bumble his way through trying to act like a human being for once. They just won't stand for it. It's almost as if they're like TMers worshiping a narcissopath they'd put up on a pedestal for being even more stuck in his head they they are and freaking out when he's revealed as rather less than heroic. :-) It's also interesting to see that the meanest and nastiest of the mean, nasty reviews of this episode come from women. It's like listening to guys who have been forced by their girlfriends to watch a chick flick going on and on about how horrible it was. :-) All in all, I didn't think it was a terribly strong episode, but there have been weak episodes in this series before, and it's not only survived but prospered in spite of the occasional lapse. I suspect it will again. It may even turn out that the friendship for Watson that Holmes has been forced to admit in this episode will become crucial in the next episode, and thus this whole episode is a set-up. Who knows? It's just a TV show. Just like FFL is just an Internet chat room. Who could possibly get their panties in a twist over something said in an Internet chat room? :-) On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:46 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Just finished watching the second episode in the new series of Sherlock and I can inform FFLifers it was the most self-indulgent pile of crap I've ever witnessed on TV. Two-thirds of the story was devoted to Sherlock and Watson's relationship with some cringe-worthy attempts at humour and generous dollops of mawkish buddy-bonding. The third segment devoted to an actual attempt at crime-solving was leaden and unconvincing. You have been warned - ignore any favourable reviews.. I see that you're not alone in feeling this way, given some of the reviews. But I think you've missed the *cause* of why you feel that way. This episode was not cringe-worthy but cringe-inducing. Many people get supremely uncomfortable watching social awkwardness and ineptness, even if it's just on a TV screen. I have no idea why the creators of Sherlock chose to create an entire hour and a half of social discomfort. Maybe it was a lapse, maybe it ties into some future plot point in their long game. Dunno. I thought parts of it were OK, and that some of the funny parts were, in fact, funny. Others, not so much. I'm not sure how this episode will tie into the rest of the series, or even if it will. It seemed to be an attempt to humanize someone who even describes *himself* as a high-functioning sociopath. It's not as if the episode was written by someone without a track record. The fellow who wrote it also wrote The Reichenbach Fall (last season's final episode, which was strong) and The Blind Banker (which wasn't one of my faves). Maybe they did it for a lark. Then again,
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Re It IS interesting, however, to see all the critical reaction -- some of it near-hysterical -- to nothing more than showing narcissistic, sociopathic Sherlock Holmes, master of Being In Control, acting like a bumbling oaf and being stumped by a rather simple plot.: We rely on Holmes to restore order to a chaotic world. Anything that departs from that archetype has betrayed Conan Doyle's original vision. (Something similar is happening to James Bond. Give me suave, sadistic Sean Connery over touch-feely Daniel Craig.) Re We saw this in one of Clint Eastwood's early roles, in The Beguiled. he loses to a house full of women. The movie BOMBED at the box office. People HATED it.: It's a different case entirely as Holmes (and Bond) are fictional characters whereas Eastwood is an actor. Actors you expect to be able to play different roles. The Beguiled is also my favourite Clint Eastwood film. It's sexual manipulation all the way with fantastic performances from all the cast.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Yes, Centering Prayer is a rip-off of TM. But there are precursors remarkably like TM in the earlier Church, especially among the Quietists. The 17th-century Miguel de Molinos taught us to turn our attention inward without imagination and adopt a passive attitude to whatever arises in your mind (soul). One aspect that reminds me of TM is that Molinos assures us there is no reason to worry when thoughts are distracted, because it is not necessary to think of God (ie, to have one's attention turned inwards) during the whole time of the prayer. The prayer still continues provided that one has been sincere in starting the session - it's up to God what happens during the allotted time. Sounds similar to the TM idea one should favour the mantra but be relaxed about allowing other thoughts to arise. He was found guilty of inappropriate sexual contact with his female disciples (sound familiar?). He admitted the charge but claimed they were purifying acts caused by the devil. Ah yes! We've all had those. He was condemned for heresy and died in prison. The 14th-century English classic The Cloud of Unknowing also has parallels with TM and advises repeating a one- or two-syllable word. So a passive attitude and a mantra - all that's missing is an initiation fee.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Interesting notes. Thanks. I was not aware of Miguel de Molinos as one of the Quietist in method like us. Was he influenced by others? His teaching became a spiritual movement at a time? Published? Held meetings? He had students? Another transcendentalist within the 17th Century. -Buck
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
The truly distinctive aspect of TM is how it's taught. And that's the biggest difference, actually, between TM and Centering Prayer: TM is taught live, one-on-one. Rather than a step-by-step set of instructions to follow, TM has the teacher taking the student through the experience of meditating on an individualized basis in a way that can't be duplicated by following printed instructions because it's so nondirective. Centering Prayer doesn't recognize the difference and takes certain selected bits from the TM procedure and puts them on paper, from which you're supposed to be able to learn how to do Centering Prayer. (No doubt it also holds live learning sessions,but just the fact that it says you can learn Centering Prayer from a book speaks of a fundamental gulf in understanding.) When you think about it, the amazing thing about TM is not that it's so easy to learn and practice, but that it can be taught at all. Yes, Centering Prayer is a rip-off of TM. But there are precursors remarkably like TM in the earlier Church, especially among the Quietists. The 17th-century Miguel de Molinos taught us to turn our attention inward without imagination and adopt a passive attitude to whatever arises in your mind (soul). One aspect that reminds me of TM is that Molinos assures us there is no reason to worry when thoughts are distracted, because it is not necessary to think of God (ie, to have one's attention turned inwards) during the whole time of the prayer. The prayer still continues provided that one has been sincere in starting the session - it's up to God what happens during the allotted time. Sounds similar to the TM idea one should favour the mantra but be relaxed about allowing other thoughts to arise. He was found guilty of inappropriate sexual contact with his female disciples (sound familiar?). He admitted the charge but claimed they were purifying acts caused by the devil. Ah yes! We've all had those. He was condemned for heresy and died in prison. The 14th-century English classic The Cloud of Unknowing also has parallels with TM and advises repeating a one- or two-syllable word. So a passive attitude and a mantra - all that's missing is an initiation fee.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
You bet, it is true there is a large 'field effect' boost from a mature and deeply experienced teacher of transcending meditation when the teaching is transmitted directly. There is some spiritual physics working there that Centering Prayer is not necessarily respecting. I never sensed that those monks that ripped TM off respected that which was going on as Maharishi set it up. They just looked at us like we were a bunch of whet behind the ear kids. There are teachers and there are teachers. Getting a meditation from a sat guru teacher, even a TM teacher who has put in the spiritual time, is a large boon to someone's meditation. Good point to make Authfriend, -Buck in the Dome ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: The truly distinctive aspect of TM is how it's taught. And that's the biggest difference, actually, between TM and Centering Prayer: TM is taught live, one-on-one. Rather than a step-by-step set of instructions to follow, TM has the teacher taking the student through the experience of meditating on an individualized basis in a way that can't be duplicated by following printed instructions because it's so nondirective. Centering Prayer doesn't recognize the difference and takes certain selected bits from the TM procedure and puts them on paper, from which you're supposed to be able to learn how to do Centering Prayer. (No doubt it also holds live learning sessions,but just the fact that it says you can learn Centering Prayer from a book speaks of a fundamental gulf in understanding.) When you think about it, the amazing thing about TM is not that it's so easy to learn and practice, but that it can be taught at all. Yes, Centering Prayer is a rip-off of TM. But there are precursors remarkably like TM in the earlier Church, especially among the Quietists. The 17th-century Miguel de Molinos taught us to turn our attention inward without imagination and adopt a passive attitude to whatever arises in your mind (soul). One aspect that reminds me of TM is that Molinos assures us there is no reason to worry when thoughts are distracted, because it is not necessary to think of God (ie, to have one's attention turned inwards) during the whole time of the prayer. The prayer still continues provided that one has been sincere in starting the session - it's up to God what happens during the allotted time. Sounds similar to the TM idea one should favour the mantra but be relaxed about allowing other thoughts to arise. He was found guilty of inappropriate sexual contact with his female disciples (sound familiar?). He admitted the charge but claimed they were purifying acts caused by the devil. Ah yes! We've all had those. He was condemned for heresy and died in prison. The 14th-century English classic The Cloud of Unknowing also has parallels with TM and advises repeating a one- or two-syllable word. So a passive attitude and a mantra - all that's missing is an initiation fee.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Well, field effects weren't really the point I was making, Buck. I'm a reverential admirer of the extraordinary delicacy of TM instruction, regardless of the experience of the teacher. That's what Frs. Keating and Pennington just never got. I don't care how many women Maharishi slept with, his method of teaching TM was a work of genius. You bet, it is true there is a large 'field effect' boost from a mature and deeply experienced teacher of transcending meditation when the teaching is transmitted directly. There is some spiritual physics working there that Centering Prayer is not necessarily respecting. I never sensed that those monks that ripped TM off respected that which was going on as Maharishi set it up. They just looked at us like we were a bunch of whet behind the ear kids. There are teachers and there are teachers. Getting a meditation from a sat guru teacher, even a TM teacher who has put in the spiritual time, is a large boon to someone's meditation. Good point to make Authfriend, -Buck in the Dome ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: The truly distinctive aspect of TM is how it's taught. And that's the biggest difference, actually, between TM and Centering Prayer: TM is taught live, one-on-one. Rather than a step-by-step set of instructions to follow, TM has the teacher taking the student through the experience of meditating on an individualized basis in a way that can't be duplicated by following printed instructions because it's so nondirective. Centering Prayer doesn't recognize the difference and takes certain selected bits from the TM procedure and puts them on paper, from which you're supposed to be able to learn how to do Centering Prayer. (No doubt it also holds live learning sessions,but just the fact that it says you can learn Centering Prayer from a book speaks of a fundamental gulf in understanding.) When you think about it, the amazing thing about TM is not that it's so easy to learn and practice, but that it can be taught at all. Yes, Centering Prayer is a rip-off of TM. But there are precursors remarkably like TM in the earlier Church, especially among the Quietists. The 17th-century Miguel de Molinos taught us to turn our attention inward without imagination and adopt a passive attitude to whatever arises in your mind (soul). One aspect that reminds me of TM is that Molinos assures us there is no reason to worry when thoughts are distracted, because it is not necessary to think of God (ie, to have one's attention turned inwards) during the whole time of the prayer. The prayer still continues provided that one has been sincere in starting the session - it's up to God what happens during the allotted time. Sounds similar to the TM idea one should favour the mantra but be relaxed about allowing other thoughts to arise. He was found guilty of inappropriate sexual contact with his female disciples (sound familiar?). He admitted the charge but claimed they were purifying acts caused by the devil. Ah yes! We've all had those. He was condemned for heresy and died in prison. The 14th-century English classic The Cloud of Unknowing also has parallels with TM and advises repeating a one- or two-syllable word. So a passive attitude and a mantra - all that's missing is an initiation fee.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Just finished watching the second episode in the new series of Sherlock and I can inform FFLifers it was the most self-indulgent pile of crap I've ever witnessed on TV. Two-thirds of the story was devoted to Sherlock and Watson's relationship with some cringe-worthy attempts at humour and generous dollops of mawkish buddy-bonding. The third segment devoted to an actual attempt at crime-solving was leaden and unconvincing. You have been warned - ignore any favourable reviews.. Fortunately, this Christmas I was gifted the first series of The Mentalist with crime solver Patrick Jane. I'd not seen it before and it is way more involving and clever than Sherlock. Simon Baker as the former psychic is an engaging and amusing character.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
If you are interested in the Us series Elementary:See here some discussion /remarks about it at :http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages /309629 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages /309629 May be the part-time female assistance in this new episode is a reference to the US version.Could be? What You think? Sorry about Victorianlabel -thanks for reminder .Has to chuckle and partly agree with your cringe-worthy attempts at humour and generous dollops of mawkish buddy-remark.Sad May be it's only because I am so fond of waterfalls.. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: The BBC Sherlock is a worldwide hit but I read that the USA is *not* so enamoured and viewing figures there are quite low. I love the original Holmes tales (though Poe's Dupin is the original and the best) so I enjoy this modern updating but the series does strike me as a bit smug and self-congratulatory. Too much style over substance perhaps? Still, there are classy moments and I never miss an episode. IMHO Jeremy Brett's Holmes is the best-ever representation. Astonishing performance. Truly brilliant. Popular entertainment as high art! My fave Holmes story was The Adventure of the Copper Beeches. A key plot element is the auburn hair of the central character. A young woman applying for the job of a governess is offered excellent wages thanks to her red hair. Is the employer a sexual fetishist? Is something sleazy going on? Because Holmes is asexual the Copper Beeches plot adds an element of sexual frisson which is all the more effective thanks to the background of period respectability and decorum. On a side note: we Brits call the Sherlock period Edwardian. When we use labels like Victorian or Edwardian do Yanks (or Europeans for that matter) refer to it by some other designation? After all, Ed and Vicky were not *your* sovereigns. (Though you are always welcome to rejoin the club and become loyal subjects of Liz II.) I've never seen US series Elementary - would you recommend that?
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Re I am so fond of waterfalls: Crikey! Shows how slow I'm becoming. I completely missed the nod to the Reichenbach Fall in the Sherlock death leap at the end of the last series. But it has been an age since I read the original story and this version is so hip and postmodern any relation to Conan Doyle's consulting detective is ever more tenuous . . . Yes, Elementary could be the next series for me to investigate. The thing about The Mentalist is that it also mines the Derren Brown angle. In fact if you're not familiar with Derren-type trickery a lot of the techniques must pass you by.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The game is afoot again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Re I am so fond of waterfalls: Crikey! Shows how slow I'm becoming. I completely missed the nod to the Reichenbach Fall in the Sherlock death leap at the end of the last series. That's a pretty big miss. You obviously need to spend more time with Sherlock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRFUjVTcHQY#t=0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRFUjVTcHQY#t=0
[FairfieldLife] Re: The game is afoot again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita wrote: The series creator and writer Mark Gatiss also plays Mycroft. He's so snooty and superior he's a hoot and I always enjoy his appearances. That's cool. Somehow I'd never noticed that. He does wind up giving his character some of the best lines. If there is anyone snootier than Sherlock, it's Mycroft. :-) Sherlock in the original stories was always passionately on the side of justice and defending the little man. I think Benedict Cumberbatch (what a ghastly name!) plays Sherlock as a little *too* cold and aloof. Sherlock's persona in this series is not exactly true to the original, but part of the series' schtick. As the character himself put it in the opening episode when a policeman accused him of being a psychopath within his hearing, I am *not* a psychopath; I'm a high-functioning sociopath. :-)
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
I was amused to see Derren Brown make a cameo appearance in this new Sherlock opener. Have you noticed he's now going bald? He always was but he wore a hairpiece in his early TV series. When I saw his live show I found it cringe-worthy when, before he came on stage, he announced his presence on the PA and nervously warned everyone about his lack of hair and not to expect him to look like his TV persona. A brief glimpse of his insecurity below the master hypnotist role he adopts.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Maybe it would be more popular in the US if Sherlock investigated a clan of bayoubillies. :-D And I have never seen Elementary. I have enough problem with what the idiots running Hollywood do to TV. On 01/03/2014 07:21 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: The BBC Sherlock is a worldwide hit but I read that the USA is *not* so enamoured and viewing figures there are quite low. I love the original Holmes tales (though Poe's Dupin is the original and the best) so I enjoy this modern updating but the series does strike me as a bit smug and self-congratulatory. Too much style over substance perhaps? Still, there are classy moments and I never miss an episode. IMHO Jeremy Brett's Holmes is the best-ever representation. Astonishing performance. Truly brilliant. Popular entertainment as high art! My fave Holmes story was The Adventure of the Copper Beeches. A key plot element is the auburn hair of the central character. A young woman applying for the job of a governess is offered excellent wages thanks to her red hair. Is the employer a sexual fetishist? Is something sleazy going on? Because Holmes is asexual the Copper Beeches plot adds an element of sexual frisson which is all the more effective thanks to the background of period respectability and decorum. On a side note: we Brits call the Sherlock period Edwardian. When we use labels like Victorian or Edwardian do Yanks (or Europeans for that matter) refer to it by some other designation? After all, Ed and Vicky were not *your* sovereigns. (Though you are always welcome to rejoin the club and become loyal subjects of Liz II.) I've never seen US series Elementary - would you recommend that?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Victorian and Edwardian are both pretty much standard here. Also Georgian, Regency, and Stuart periods, and before that, of course, Elizabethan and Tudor. On a side note: we Brits call the Sherlock period Edwardian. When we use labels like Victorian or Edwardian do Yanks (or Europeans for that matter) refer to it by some other designation?
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: For those fans of the BBC Sherlock, your wait is either over or soon to be over (I hear that most in the US won't get to see it until later this month). Suffice it to say your wait will be worth it, but you may need to see the first episode twice to really get it all. If you haven't seen it yet (or even if you have), here's a spoiler-free teaser to whet your appetite: Love this series, love these actors love how they produced, wrote and directed it. Love the music. Can't wait. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/24/sherlock-mini-episode_n_4498484.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/24/sherlock-mini-episode_n_4498484.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
The BBC Sherlock is a worldwide hit but I read that the USA is *not* so enamoured and viewing figures there are quite low. I love the original Holmes tales (though Poe's Dupin is the original and the best) so I enjoy this modern updating but the series does strike me as a bit smug and self-congratulatory. Too much style over substance perhaps? Still, there are classy moments and I never miss an episode. IMHO Jeremy Brett's Holmes is the best-ever representation. Astonishing performance. Truly brilliant. Popular entertainment as high art! My fave Holmes story was The Adventure of the Copper Beeches. A key plot element is the auburn hair of the central character. A young woman applying for the job of a governess is offered excellent wages thanks to her red hair. Is the employer a sexual fetishist? Is something sleazy going on? Because Holmes is asexual the Copper Beeches plot adds an element of sexual frisson which is all the more effective thanks to the background of period respectability and decorum. On a side note: we Brits call the Sherlock period Edwardian. When we use labels like Victorian or Edwardian do Yanks (or Europeans for that matter) refer to it by some other designation? After all, Ed and Vicky were not *your* sovereigns. (Though you are always welcome to rejoin the club and become loyal subjects of Liz II.) I've never seen US series Elementary - would you recommend that?
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: The BBC Sherlock is a worldwide hit but I read that the USA is *not* so enamoured and viewing figures there are quite low. Shocking, I think the series is brilliant. And the Moriarty in this series is also about the most evil guy I have seen, utterly loathsome. I love the original Holmes tales (though Poe's Dupin is the original and the best) so I enjoy this modern updating but the series does strike me as a bit smug and self-congratulatory. Too much style over substance perhaps? Still, there are classy moments and I never miss an episode. Definitely a lot of style and very hip but nevertheless it all works for me. I like how they manage to integrate the technology with how the mind of Holmes operates and still make it seem true to the original concept. IMHO Jeremy Brett's Holmes is the best-ever representation. Astonishing performance. Truly brilliant. Popular entertainment as high art! Too true! My husband and I bought the whole series and still watch it. He loves how eccentric that version of Holmes is. Jeremy really captures some great facial expressions and tonal eccentricities in his speech, not to mention his body language. Very unique. My fave Holmes story was The Adventure of the Copper Beeches. A key plot element is the auburn hair of the central character. A young woman applying for the job of a governess is offered excellent wages thanks to her red hair. Is the employer a sexual fetishist? Is something sleazy going on? Because Holmes is asexual the Copper Beeches plot adds an element of sexual frisson which is all the more effective thanks to the background of period respectability and decorum. On a side note: we Brits call the Sherlock period Edwardian. When we use labels like Victorian or Edwardian do Yanks (or Europeans for that matter) refer to it by some other designation? After all, Ed and Vicky were not *your* sovereigns. (Though you are always welcome to rejoin the club and become loyal subjects of Liz II.) I use the same terms but maybe because I lived there for as long as I did. I am not sure the average Yank is that educated on the various periods. As a former British Isles dweller and current Canadian, Liz II does hold sway in this country and, by default, with me. I've never seen US series Elementary - would you recommend that? I have never even heard of it but I am more likely to be watching Masterpiece Theatre or some History Channel thing than American sitcoms or series.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The game is afoot again
Re Moriarty in this series is also about the most evil guy I have seen: The series creator and writer Mark Gatiss also plays Mycroft. He's so snooty and superior he's a hoot and I always enjoy his appearances. Sherlock in the original stories was always passionately on the side of justice and defending the little man. I think Benedict Cumberbatch (what a ghastly name!) plays Sherlock as a little *too* cold and aloof. (There is a new BBC TV series starring Mark Williams as G. K. Chesterton's Father Brown which I've also been enjoying. Father Brown faces moral dilemmas which most TV detectives steer well clear of. ) Re They manage to integrate the technology with how the mind of Holmes operates and still make it seem true to the original concept.: Spot on. Re Jeremy Brett really captured some great facial expressions and tonal eccentricities in his speech, not to mention his body language.: His body language really fascinated me. A relic of his stage experience in which exaggerated postures can compensate for the lack of the TV/film close-up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: The BBC Sherlock is a worldwide hit but I read that the USA is *not* so enamoured and viewing figures there are quite low. Shocking, I think the series is brilliant. And the Moriarty in this series is also about the most evil guy I have seen, utterly loathsome. I love the original Holmes tales (though Poe's Dupin is the original and the best) so I enjoy this modern updating but the series does strike me as a bit smug and self-congratulatory. Too much style over substance perhaps? Still, there are classy moments and I never miss an episode. Definitely a lot of style and very hip but nevertheless it all works for me. I like how they manage to integrate the technology with how the mind of Holmes operates and still make it seem true to the original concept. IMHO Jeremy Brett's Holmes is the best-ever representation. Astonishing performance. Truly brilliant. Popular entertainment as high art! Too true! My husband and I bought the whole series and still watch it. He loves how eccentric that version of Holmes is. Jeremy really captures some great facial expressions and tonal eccentricities in his speech, not to mention his body language. Very unique. My fave Holmes story was The Adventure of the Copper Beeches. A key plot element is the auburn hair of the central character. A young woman applying for the job of a governess is offered excellent wages thanks to her red hair. Is the employer a sexual fetishist? Is something sleazy going on? Because Holmes is asexual the Copper Beeches plot adds an element of sexual frisson which is all the more effective thanks to the background of period respectability and decorum. On a side note: we Brits call the Sherlock period Edwardian. When we use labels like Victorian or Edwardian do Yanks (or Europeans for that matter) refer to it by some other designation? After all, Ed and Vicky were not *your* sovereigns. (Though you are always welcome to rejoin the club and become loyal subjects of Liz II.) I use the same terms but maybe because I lived there for as long as I did. I am not sure the average Yank is that educated on the various periods. As a former British Isles dweller and current Canadian, Liz II does hold sway in this country and, by default, with me. I've never seen US series Elementary - would you recommend that? I have never even heard of it but I am more likely to be watching Masterpiece Theatre or some History Channel thing than American sitcoms or series.
