[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Purusha was fully operative in January 1982. Stationed in Germany and Holland it took us 7 years to bring down the Berlin wall. Montsanto ? It's already doomed.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Do you not want readers to know what post you're responding to? That's the only reason I can think of why you wouldn't click Show message history. One mouse click, that's all it takes, yet you refuse to extend us that very simple courtesy. Purusha was fully operative in January 1982. Stationed in Germany and Holland it took us 7 years to bring down the Berlin wall. Montsanto ? It's already doomed.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
that would be nice and as I have stated here before I think GMO's are one of the few things we agree on. Just in a common sense way, it makes NO sense to allow one company or government to own patents on (eventually) all food crops in the world. Who controls the food supply controls the world. But it seems that Monsanto is getting stronger and more influential by the year and the TMO is, well... not so strong. I wish however that you were right, but I expect it is going to take some massive disaster that could be shown to be a direct result of the GMO's existence before things change. Monsanto certainly has plenty of paid for friends here in the US White House and Congress and for all the European jabber about how much more worldly and sophisticated their people and countries are than the US, people I know in Europe tell me their politicians are just as greedy, venal and corrupt as US politicians. The European Union is steadily eroding any barriers the individual countries have put in place against GMO's in general and Monsanto in particular. I wish TMSP would end GMO's but it didn't end the Berlin Wall - that was an unwieldy unworkable system that made people miserable falling apart from its own weight. On Sun, 3/9/14, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, March 9, 2014, 6:50 PM Purusha was fully operative in January 1982. Stationed in Germany and Holland it took us 7 years to bring down the Berlin wall. Montsanto ? It's already doomed.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
7 years! Wow, instant results. Almost too much time to draw a target round the arrow - but not quite. I guess anything good that happens after a purusha group is set up can be claimed as a hit. Anything badnot claimed of course. I love the use of the word stationed, it's like you actually believe it all, what an exciting world to live in. If only the rest of us knew that our lives were the pawns of natural law as governed and released by Nabby and his thousand headed pals. Here's how Monsanto will win: The government is on their side and very soon they will be able to say that we've been eating it for years anyway due to the constant diluting of EU law and people in the US have been shovelling it down for decades. Soon it will be everywhere, for better or for worse. And look. I clicked on the Show Message History at the bottom so that everyone knows what post I'm referring to. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Purusha was fully operative in January 1982. Stationed in Germany and Holland it took us 7 years to bring down the Berlin wall. Montsanto ? It's already doomed.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
As Bhairitu mentioned ' With the advent of computers and the Internet we can grow plenty of crops without them being genetically modified though the GMO crops are modified for one thing: profit.' The companies are now moving into technology, using sensors etc., on tractors and farm equipment to monitor growth and calculating ways to improve yield. Most of the food we eat has been modified, largely by selection a breeding over the last 10,000 years, and is hardly anything like the original non-human-modified sources. There are potential dangers with GMOs, but also potential windfalls, besides profit. All companies want to make a profit. A new version of GMO corn is close to being approved in the EU (a DuPont product - Monsanto pulled out, though they have one crop also already approved). DuPont has worked on GMOs as a way of increasing nutrition. As for Monsanto being doomed, this might be a little early to tell. In spite of the problems in the EU, it is doing fairly well in Asia. Monsanto recognized by Human Rights Campaign as having a 100% on their 2014 Corporate Equality Index (CEI). Financial Times named Monsanto the Most Innovative Law Department for 2013. Monsanto presented with a 2013 AccessibleSTL Shine the Light Award from Paraquad. Monsanto ranks 14th on Science Magazine’s 2013 Top Employers list. Monsanto ranked #12 on the Top 25 World's Best Multinational Workplaces list by the Great Place to Work® Institute. Monsanto Named DiversityInc’s Top Company for Global Cultural Competence 2013 Monsanto Recognized as a 2013 Best Adoption-Friendly Workplace Monsanto 34th on Forbes list of the World's Most Innovative Companies. Monsanto ranks #20 on the Top 50 Employers in Workforce Diversity For Engineering IT Professionals Magazine. Monsanto selected as one of Computerworld's 100 Best Places to Work in IT 2013. Monsanto ranked #18 on 2013 List of The Best Multinationals in Latin America. Monsanto Ranks #42 on 2013 Top 50 Companies for Diversity. American Heart Association recognizes Monsanto as a 2013 Platinum Level Fit-Friendly Company. Monsanto named one of the National Association for Female Executives (NAFE) Top 50 Companies for Executive Women for 2013. Monsanto ranks #44 on the 22nd Annual Top 50 Employers in Minority Engineer Magazine. Monsanto recognized as one of the 40 Best Companies for Leaders 2013 by Chief Executive magazine. Monsanto Named one of Thomson Reuters' 2012 Top 100 Global Innovators. Monsanto ranked #14 on the Top 25 World's Best Multinational Workplaces list by the Great Place to Work® Institute. Monsanto recognized by Human Rights Campaign as having a 100% on their 2013 Corporate Equality Index (CEI). Now what kind of crop yields and nutrition does Vedic Agriculture provide in direct comparison (meaning a scientific comparison, not hype)? Some have argued that if modern scientific agricultural methods were eliminated, mass starvation would result. I do not know if that is proved, but as far as I am familiar, all the science is on the big agra side. Does anyone know of controlled side-by-side comparisons of organic farming methods or 'Vedic' farming methods measured against what is now called conventional agriculture? By the way on December 25, 1991 I sneezed, and lo and behold, the very next day the Soviet Union formally dissolved. Talk about influence. Correlation is not causation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : 7 years! Wow, instant results. Almost too much time to draw a target round the arrow - but not quite. I guess anything good that happens after a purusha group is set up can be claimed as a hit. Anything badnot claimed of course. I love the use of the word stationed, it's like you actually believe it all, what an exciting world to live in. If only the rest of us knew that our lives were the pawns of natural law as governed and released by Nabby and his thousand headed pals. Here's how Monsanto will win: The government is on their side and very soon they will be able to say that we've been eating it for years anyway due to the constant diluting of EU law and people in the US have been shovelling it down for decades. Soon it will be everywhere, for better or for worse. And look. I clicked on the Show Message History at the bottom so that everyone knows what post I'm referring to. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Purusha was fully operative in January 1982. Stationed in Germany and Holland it took us 7 years to bring down the Berlin wall. Montsanto ? It's already doomed.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Strange to me how someone could be so impervious to a simple, common sense suggestion. He has it stuck in his mind that it is a simple matter to go back and follow the discussion. His postings must be totally drive by and reactive. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Do you not want readers to know what post you're responding to? That's the only reason I can think of why you wouldn't click Show message history. One mouse click, that's all it takes, yet you refuse to extend us that very simple courtesy. Purusha was fully operative in January 1982. Stationed in Germany and Holland it took us 7 years to bring down the Berlin wall. Montsanto ? It's already doomed.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
On 3/9/2014 5:00 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote: His postings must be totally drive by and reactive. Maybe he knows nobody cares so he just posts whatever comes to his mind at the time. I don't need to see a history because I already know what he is going to post when I see his name. You need to realize that the individual in this case is using the name of a dead man as his alias. And, why should he care - he is posting anonymously. I think he already made his point - why he's still here repeating himself on FFL is beyond me. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Seraph, one hears all sorts of interesting spiritual tidbits when one lives in FF. The tidbits are as if floating in the air, swimming in the puddles of melting snow, etc. I don't remember that there was an explanation but it made sense to me given that the feminine is the receptive in the act of intimate congress. However your idea is intriguing also. And your insight is practical. On Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:34 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Re Share's Also, and more importantly, I believe that a woman takes on a man's karma when they have intercourse.: That's an intriguing speculation. Where have you encountered that suggestion before? (And why shouldn't a man take on a woman's karma when a couple make love?) Of course, the idea of a man and woman taking on each other's karmas can be used to make a case for fidelity in sexual relationships and to argue against promiscuity.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Also, and more importantly, I believe that a woman takes on a man's karma when they have intercourse. Sounds like pure 24 karat bullshit, to me, derived from sexual repression, and a desire to escape the mundane existence of a dull nervous system. No offense.:-) Before Awakening, people will do and say anything in the quest for Liberation, and fail completely at ALL of it. After Awakening, despite any attempts to climb back into the aforementioned cage, it will be found to be utterly impossible - Instead, success becomes inevitable, in any domain, as that is the practical definition of Awakening, Enlightenment and Liberation. So this discussion of spiritual experiences from those Terrified To Wake Up, is pretty much worthless. Happy 2014!!! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Seraph, one hears all sorts of interesting spiritual tidbits when one lives in FF. The tidbits are as if floating in the air, swimming in the puddles of melting snow, etc. I don't remember that there was an explanation but it made sense to me given that the feminine is the receptive in the act of intimate congress. However your idea is intriguing also. And your insight is practical. On Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:34 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: Re Share's Also, and more importantly, I believe that a woman takes on a man's karma when they have intercourse.: That's an intriguing speculation. Where have you encountered that suggestion before? (And why shouldn't a man take on a woman's karma when a couple make love?) Of course, the idea of a man and woman taking on each other's karmas can be used to make a case for fidelity in sexual relationships and to argue against promiscuity.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Re Share's Also, and more importantly, I believe that a woman takes on a man's karma when they have intercourse.: That's an intriguing speculation. Where have you encountered that suggestion before? (And why shouldn't a man take on a woman's karma when a couple make love?) Of course, the idea of a man and woman taking on each other's karmas can be used to make a case for fidelity in sexual relationships and to argue against promiscuity.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
As the transcendental meditators generally arrived in Fairfield, Iowa during the mid and late 1970's and throughout the 1980's the Fairfield group meditations then were large and inclusive of the whole TM meditating community. The group meditations once facilitated in the 1980's by the TM organization were long, large and twice daily attended. Initially there was not need to have distinct Quaker meetings for worship separate from the long hours of the much larger corporate enterprise as the TM group meditations were facilitated in Fairfield, Iowa. Only very occasionally would the meditator-Quakers meet of their own being in Quaker Meeting as they were certainly in discipline as peace-activists otherwise in the long group meditations as meetings for worship as Quakers could recognized themselves within the TM group. It was only after some years when TM administration of the Dome meditation became exclusionary and the size of the Dome meditations declined that meditating-Quakers of Fairfield also added in a turning back to their own meditation schedule a Quaker Meeting to fill a vacuum created by communal purgings and depletion then of what had been the larger TM Dome meditation community. Since that time of the declines in the TM Dome meditation of the 1990's and 00's in Fairfield there has been sustained a regular schedule of old silent Quaker Meetings kept in an addition as their own Quaker's refuge of inclusive communal spirituality. Quaker Meeting for Worship, 17th Century. Entering into this form of worship. . “… the first that enters into the place of your meeting, be not careless, nor wander up and down either in body or mind, but innocently sit down in some place and turn in thy mind to the Light, and wait upon God (The Unified Field Transcendent) simply, as if none were present but the Lord, and here thou art strong. When the next that come in, let them in simplicity and heart sit down and turn to the same Light, and wait in the Spirit, and so all the rest coming in fear of the Lord sit down in pure stillness and silence of all flesh, and wait in the Light. A few that are thus gathered by the arm of the Lord into the unity of the Spirit, this is a sweet and precious meeting in which all are met with the Lord…. Those who are brought to a pure, still waiting on God in the Spirit are come nearer to God than words are… though not a word be spoken to the hearing of the ear. In such a meeting where the presence and power of God is felt, there will be an unwillingness to part asunder, being ready to say in yourselves, it is good to be here, and this is the end of all words and writings, to bring people to the eternal living word.” -1660 -Alexander Parker, Letters of Early Friends, ed. A.R. Barclay (London; Darton and Harvey, 1841), pp. 365-66. Alexander Parker was a close companion of George Fox. There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath had different names. It is, however, pure and proceeds from God (the Unified Field). It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever, they become brethren. -John Woolman, Quaker 20th Century Quakers coming to Fairfield, Iowa in a form of spiritual direct-action peace-activism as re-enforcement joining with the large group meditations facilitated by Transcendental Meditation(TM) in Fairfield held a natural affinity to Quakers. To come as re-enforcement to the enterprise of what was identified then as the spiritual Meissner Effect (ME) of group consciousness had a recognized legitimacy to spiritual Quakerism. That corporate group spirituality is a Quaker practice that particularly attracted a number of old Quakers in to the TM movement early on. Initially upon coming to Fairfield, Iowa to re-enforce the aggregate numbers in meditation the old-style Quakers joined in alongside the TM meditations; as when in Rome do as the Romans do. This history in context now becomes an additional chapter in The Quakers of Iowa. See: http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm The Quakers of Iowa A history of the Quaker settlement of Iowa including the nature of the under ground rail road in 19th Century Iowa. Written by Louis T. Jones, 1914 http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm For sometime, the transcending meditation group practices of Quakers as the Society of Friends was a dominant spiritual practice in the settlement and cultivation of America and as so often has happened with Knowledge in sequence of time the now ancient silent transcendental Quaker practice fell crashing upon shoals of spiritually ignorant ideologies and the primitive Quakerism itself almost entirely foundered out of sight as a spiritual movement of the Meissner
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Barry Wrote: But then AIDS came along. And suddenly the old fears came with them. And the world changed again, but this time in a more restrictive, more fearful direction. --- awoelflebater@... wrote: I think much of the fear around AIDS has faded away and I think a lot of this has to do with the passage of time, the fact that there exist more effective HIV drugs and because many straight people still think of it as a gay disease. I think the gay disease opinion is the result of not only ignorance but of a 'holier-than-thou' attitude that these people think will somehow keep them safe from contracting the HIV virus. My observationis that the average person under the age of 30 really doesn't think about AIDS as a real threat to them. In the 1920's, a french scientist Serge Voronoff believed that chimps were more virile and started taking tissue strips from chimp testes and grafted them onto the testes of men. Some scientists say that this might have been the route HIV took to enter into humans. http://www.coastalpost.com/99/6/9.htm http://www.coastalpost.com/99/6/9.htm This world is simply unpredictable and there is no telling what unintended consequences might be. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/365287 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/365287 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/365293 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/365293
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: I think absent any social codes, the difference in sexual promiscuity between males and females comes down to consequences. Prior to birth control, if a female had sex with a male, she could be literally burdened with offspring. Not so for the male. Add in the greater physical strength of the male, and you have all the seeds for the difference in attitudes. The Pill greatly eliminated the risk factor of pregnancy, for women, and certainly in the West, physical strength is no longer a guarantee of greater economic power. So attitudes are changing too. Regarding the 60's, I saw a lot of sexual expression, but also a lot of conventional sex roles between men and women, simply dressed up in strange clothing and fashion. --- s3raphita@... wrote: Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution. - Bertrand Russell The human race has emerged from prehistory and has developed its culture for millennia but we're still confused about sex. I mean what could be simpler? Boy meets girl. Then . . . well you know what. Why is something as elementary and essential as the attraction between the sexes still a battlefield and the source of constant disputes (the War of the Sexes)? I've sometimes wondered if the problem is equality - the idea that men and women must be regarded as equal in all respects. If we allow ourselves to generalise, men do *seem* to be more promiscuous than women; women do *seem* to be looking for a permanent partner. (Proof? Gay males have far more partners and far more sex than straight men. Lesbians have far less sex than any other group. Heterosexuals lie between those two figures.) This difference was recognised in the Victorian period when a marriage between a man and woman was assumed to be permanent (and divorces were regarded as scandalous) but at the same time there was an army of prostitutes to satisfy the novelty-seeking desires of the male population. I don't have an answer to the discrepancy - I just think we should look at the issue with wide-open eyes. Maybe it is just a result of women having being controlled by men for centuries; men who had their supremacy recognised by law. Now that that patriarchy is breaking down the differences between the sexual habits of men and women *may* vanish completely. But I certainly don't rule out the idea that such differences are rooted in biology. There are some wonderful ironies here. Is putting women on a pedestal (as happened in the 19th century with the cult of the lady an acknowledgment of women's superiority (or at least equality) or is it a cunning (probably subconscious) put down? I've quoted Malcolm Muggeridge twice before on FFL. Here it is again: It's impossible to string together three consecutive sentences about sex without making a complete hypocrite of yourself. This post must make me guilty as charged. One thing is for sure: the sexual utopia envisaged by the sixties revolutionaries has failed to materialise. On the other hand the days when a woman could die from sexual hysteria (it really did happen - see Ruskin's infatuation with Rose La Touche) are long gone! The difference in physical size in genders is called dimorphism. In gorrilas where male is almost twice the size of the female, the male is highly polygamus. In species where there is no dimorphism at all, ie male and female look identical, the male is monogamus. We humans are slightly dimorphic. So the human male has some polygamic tendencies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
I think absent any social codes, the difference in sexual promiscuity between males and females comes down to consequences. Prior to birth control, if a female had sex with a male, she could be literally burdened with offspring. Not so for the male. Add in the greater physical strength of the male, and you have all the seeds for the difference in attitudes. The Pill greatly eliminated the risk factor of pregnancy, for women, and certainly in the West, physical strength is no longer a guarantee of greater economic power. So attitudes are changing too. Regarding the 60's, I saw a lot of sexual expression, but also a lot of conventional sex roles between men and women, simply dressed up in strange clothing and fashion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: I think absent any social codes, the difference in sexual promiscuity between males and females comes down to consequences. Prior to birth control, if a female had sex with a male, she could be literally burdened with offspring. Not so for the male. Add in the greater physical strength of the male, and you have all the seeds for the difference in attitudes. The Pill greatly eliminated the risk factor of pregnancy, for women, and certainly in the West, physical strength is no longer a guarantee of greater economic power. So attitudes are changing too. Regarding the 60's, I saw a lot of sexual expression, but also a lot of conventional sex roles between men and women, simply dressed up in strange clothing and fashion. I'm sure I've commented on this rap before, but given the insight that the rapper had, it's worth doing again. I once saw a lecture given by one of my favorite authors in the field of science fiction and fantasy, Ursula K. Le Guin. Ursula -- in person -- is a tour de force. She's wonderful! In terms of her background, there are reasons why. She was raised in a household that included a father and mother who were pretty much the gods of the world of academic anthropology and sociology. She seemed to have picked up a great deal of insight into the human condition as the result of that upbringing, because her fiction works are among the most insightful I've ever encountere w.r.t. the human condition. Anyway, in this lecture, Ursula mentioned a few facts that have never since left my mind. She spoke of the sexual revolution in terms of how *short* it was. According to her, what we know of about that period was a short period of time between the invention of penicillin and the birth control pill and the appearance of a nasty virus called HLV. That was *IT*, according to this strong feminist-before-they-were-called-that. Before the invention of the Pill and penicillin, according to Ursula, sex had *at every point in human history* been a potentially fatal experience. A *huge* number of women died in childbirth, and a sizable number of other people died of STDs, some of which (like syphillis) are fatal. Then came penicillin, the first effective treatment for syphillis. And shortly thereafter came the Pill, and that was All She Wrote for many of the rules and regs of sexual behavior. Suddenly there were no more potentially fatal down sides to gettin' it on, and so people Got It On. The world changed. But then AIDS came along. And suddenly the old fears came with them. And the world changed again, but this time in a more restrictive, more fearful direction.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Barry Wrote: But then AIDS came along. And suddenly the old fears came with them. And the world changed again, but this time in a more restrictive, more fearful direction. I think much of the fear around AIDS has faded away and I think a lot of this has to do with the passage of time, the fact that there exist more effective HIV drugs and because many straight people still think of it as a gay disease. I think the gay disease opinion is the result of not only ignorance but of a 'holier-than-thou' attitude that these people think will somehow keep them safe from contracting the HIV virus. My observationis that the average person under the age of 30 really doesn't think about AIDS as a real threat to them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Ann, years ago in a communications class I learned that young people in certain ways feel invincible, like they will never die. Consequently ads against drinking and driving that featured a skeleton did not have any impact. So they changed to ads saying *friends don't let friends drive drunk* and that worked because young people are very tribal. On Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:09 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Barry Wrote: But then AIDS came along. And suddenly the old fears came with them. And the world changed again, but this time in a more restrictive, more fearful direction. I think much of the fear around AIDS has faded away and I think a lot of this has to do with the passage of time, the fact that there exist more effective HIV drugs and because many straight people still think of it as a gay disease. I think the gay disease opinion is the result of not only ignorance but of a 'holier-than-thou' attitude that these people think will somehow keep them safe from contracting the HIV virus. My observationis that the average person under the age of 30 really doesn't think about AIDS as a real threat to them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Seraph, I would say that if a culture is putting women on a pedestal, look more deeply and one will find someplace where that same culture is also demonizing and or discounting the feminine. The pedestal is merely overcompensation imo. I have come to the conclusion that in general deification equals demonization. Additionally, I think it has to do with the body spirit split. We westerners tend to demonize the body, matter, the physical and deify the spiritual, the non material. Somehow when patriarchy emerged, the feminine came to be identified with the former and the masculine came to be identified with the latter and thus with higher status. All very screwy if you ask me! I do think it is a matter of biology. For example, there are chemical changes that occur in a female that cause her to bond more readily than the male. I think this is important for a woman to consider even if there is no risk of disease and even if there is no chance of pregnancy. Also and more importantly, I believe that a woman takes on a man's karma when they have intercourse. IMO this is really important for a woman to consider even if no disease and no pregnancy are guaranteed. On Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:45 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution. - Bertrand Russell The human race has emerged from prehistory and has developed its culture for millennia but we're still confused about sex. I mean what could be simpler? Boy meets girl. Then . . . well you know what. Why is something as elementary and essential as the attraction between the sexes still a battlefield and the source of constant disputes (the War of the Sexes)? I've sometimes wondered if the problem is equality - the idea that men and women must be regarded as equal in all respects. If we allow ourselves to generalise, men do *seem* to be more promiscuous than women; women do *seem* to be looking for a permanent partner. (Proof? Gay males have far more partners and far more sex than straight men. Lesbians have far less sex than any other group. Heterosexuals lie between those two figures.) This difference was recognised in the Victorian period when a marriage between a man and woman was assumed to be permanent (and divorces were regarded as scandalous) but at the same time there was an army of prostitutes to satisfy the novelty-seeking desires of the male population. I don't have an answer to the discrepancy - I just think we should look at the issue with wide-open eyes. Maybe it is just a result of women having being controlled by men for centuries; men who had their supremacy recognised by law. Now that that patriarchy is breaking down the differences between the sexual habits of men and women *may* vanish completely. But I certainly don't rule out the idea that such differences are rooted in biology. There are some wonderful ironies here. Is putting women on a pedestal (as happened in the 19th century with the cult of the lady an acknowledgment of women's superiority (or at least equality) or is it a cunning (probably subconscious) put down? I've quoted Malcolm Muggeridge twice before on FFL. Here it is again: It's impossible to string together three consecutive sentences about sex without making a complete hypocrite of yourself. This post must make me guilty as charged. One thing is for sure: the sexual utopia envisaged by the sixties revolutionaries has failed to materialise. On the other hand the days when a woman could die from sexual hysteria (it really did happen - see Ruskin's infatuation with Rose La Touche) are long gone! Reply
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Yeah, good points. The AIDS thing is quite a mind-fuck, having a fatal, largely incurable disease, emerge in the West, in the last quarter, of a century, that saw the virtual eradication of cholera, typhus, diphtheria, polio, and many other once fatal and crippling diseases.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- s3raphita wrote: The line I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code was copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't advocate any dress codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. --- TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: Just in case you were wondering, I understood that, and so my rap this morning was a reply to Jason as much as it was Buck, who tried to springboard off of it with more of his gotta keep the sinners in line any way we can horseshit. I don't advocate any kind of dress code, but *especially* one that tries to make women or men look sexless. I, for one, would love to hear Jason defend that idea, and doubt that he could. I extended my rap to cover the uniforms worn by various religious groups and cults. Historically, such uniforms (special dress for priests, monks, or nuns, or even recommended dress for lay people) are about mind control more than anything else. The priesthood always needed something to *make themselves seem better or more special, and wearing certain robes that no one else was able to wear was one way to achieve that, and thus achieve the control they wanted to maintain over their flocks. Note that in most cults or religious orders, the robes/costumes worn by lower class monks are usually different and less ornate and special than those worn by people higher up in the hierarchy. (Think the ludicrous costumes worn by TMO Rajas) This is also about control. Making the monks and nuns wear costumes, period, is also an aspect of control freakdom, because the higher-ups want to remind them at all times that they are part of an org that is better and more powerful than they are, and to remind them of their vows, meaning their willingness to follow rules laid on them by other people. One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on this forum recommending uniforms for monks, nuns, and other members of religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying to justify rules they never followed. Similarly, when people like Jason mouth off about unisex clothing, I think you'll find that they're always talking about making the women look more like men. That was the point of me posting my photo of the guy from Rocky Horror wearing a corset, garter belt, stockings, and high heels. If ALL men and women dressed like that, that would be unisex. But I think we all know that's not exactly what Jason had in mind. I kinda doubt he's going to be the first in line to get his dress and high heels and wear them everywhere. :-) Jason wrote: That is exactly the point. You wouldn't dress like a woman when you go to work. Your employer just wouldn't accept it. My point is that it perpetuates gender related prejudices and bias on a very subtle level. People can dress as they want in their private spaces (homes). In public spaces, some degree of conservative uni-dress-code will enable women to break glass ceilings. It also encourages comradeship and makes them feel that they are part of the 'family'. It's important to make that distinction between private spaces and public spaces, on this dress-code issue. --- turquoiseb@ wrote: Bullshit. And furthermore, bullshit written by a man who has no experience being a woman, and probably no experience breaking through ceilings in the workplace, glass or otherwise. I, on the other hand, have known a number of women who have not only disproved the glass ceiling myth, they have done so while retaining their individuality, their personalities, and their chosen mode of dress. --- awoelflebater@... wrote: This always says it all when it comes to Bawwy. Still laughing... You know Ann, deification of women by asymmetric dress-codes, or putting them on a pedestal, inversely stereotypes them and puts severe limitations on them. It's almost a form of reverse slavery. In other words, hyper-sexualisation of women is as bad as de-sexualisaton of women. Western society is as imbalanced as eastern societies. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans-girls-beaut\ y-contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans- girls-beauty-contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children. html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans-girls-beaut\ y-contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children.html http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/sexualisation-of-t he-western-woman/article4414595.ece http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/sexualisation-of-the-western-\ woman/article4414595.ece Where is Judy when I need her? Barry is too naive to understand the implications of this. For example, the woman who originally helped to get me my job at ILOG. I had
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jedi_spock@... wrote: --- s3raphita wrote: The line I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code was copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't advocate any dress codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. --- TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: Just in case you were wondering, I understood that, and so my rap this morning was a reply to Jason as much as it was Buck, who tried to springboard off of it with more of his gotta keep the sinners in line any way we can horseshit. I don't advocate any kind of dress code, but *especially* one that tries to make women or men look sexless. I, for one, would love to hear Jason defend that idea, and doubt that he could. I extended my rap to cover the uniforms worn by various religious groups and cults. Historically, such uniforms (special dress for priests, monks, or nuns, or even recommended dress for lay people) are about mind control more than anything else. The priesthood always needed something to *make themselves seem better or more special, and wearing certain robes that no one else was able to wear was one way to achieve that, and thus achieve the control they wanted to maintain over their flocks. Note that in most cults or religious orders, the robes/costumes worn by lower class monks are usually different and less ornate and special than those worn by people higher up in the hierarchy. (Think the ludicrous costumes worn by TMO Rajas) This is also about control. Making the monks and nuns wear costumes, period, is also an aspect of control freakdom, because the higher-ups want to remind them at all times that they are part of an org that is better and more powerful than they are, and to remind them of their vows, meaning their willingness to follow rules laid on them by other people. One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on this forum recommending uniforms for monks, nuns, and other members of religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying to justify rules they never followed. Similarly, when people like Jason mouth off about unisex clothing, I think you'll find that they're always talking about making the women look more like men. That was the point of me posting my photo of the guy from Rocky Horror wearing a corset, garter belt, stockings, and high heels. If ALL men and women dressed like that, that would be unisex. But I think we all know that's not exactly what Jason had in mind. I kinda doubt he's going to be the first in line to get his dress and high heels and wear them everywhere. :-) Jason wrote: That is exactly the point. You wouldn't dress like a woman when you go to work. Your employer just wouldn't accept it. My point is that it perpetuates gender related prejudices and bias on a very subtle level. People can dress as they want in their private spaces (homes). In public spaces, some degree of conservative uni-dress-code will enable women to break glass ceilings. It also encourages comradeship and makes them feel that they are part of the 'family'. It's important to make that distinction between private spaces and public spaces, on this dress-code issue. --- turquoiseb@ wrote: Bullshit. And furthermore, bullshit written by a man who has no experience being a woman, and probably no experience breaking through ceilings in the workplace, glass or otherwise. I, on the other hand, have known a number of women who have not only disproved the glass ceiling myth, they have done so while retaining their individuality, their personalities, and their chosen mode of dress. --- awoelflebater@... wrote: This always says it all when it comes to Bawwy. Still laughing... You know Ann, deification of women by asymmetric dress-codes, or putting them on a pedestal, inversely stereotypes them and puts severe limitations on them. It's almost a form of reverse slavery. In other words, hyper-sexualisation of women is as bad as de-sexualisaton of women. Western society is as imbalanced as eastern societies. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans-girls-beauty-contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans- girls-beauty-contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children. html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans-girls-beauty-contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children.html http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/sexualisation-of-t he-western-woman/article4414595.ece http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/sexualisation-of-the-western-woman/article4414595.ece Where is Judy when I need her? Barry is too naive to understand
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Yep, out of balance fucking and gone fucking too far Over-Secularization; Heck, we're talking bad upbringing that allows for all this destructive spirituality of ill-disciplined over-sexualization. What are parents thinking when they let their offspring dress like they do? A lot of children will spend the rest of their adult lives in recovery straightening out their subtle-energy bodies for all the spiritual negligence of their parents and the predatory nature of modern societal spirituality over the modern family unit. Such materialism in exploitation on such early ages is completely appalling and demoralizing spirituality. Firstly, in public policy we certainly need a lot more meditation everywhere to bring better coherence to everyone everywhere. Git thee to a group meditation near you and nurture spiritual Nature for a change. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, long live the French and their high-mindedness in looking after the welfare of their children if the parents of these exploited children will not do it. Spiritually criminal parents subjecting their children to the exploitation of adolescent beauty-pageant-ing should certainly have their children taken away from them and have them be sent directly to the care of consciousness-based schools in the hopes of reforming any moral damage from such adolescent pageantry forced upon these children. We all should have a large public interest in protecting the welfare of children this way, -Buck jedi_spock wrote: deification of women by asymmetric dress-codes, or putting them on a pedestal, inversely stereotypes them and puts severe limitations on them. It's almost a form of reverse slavery. In other words, hyper-sexualisation of women is as bad as de-sexualisaton of women. Western society is as imbalanced as eastern societies. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans-girls-beauty-contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans- girls-beauty-contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children. html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans-girls-beauty-contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children.html http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/sexualisation-of-t he-western-woman/article4414595.ece http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/sexualisation-of-the-western-woman/article4414595.ece ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jedi_spock@... wrote: --- s3raphita wrote: The line I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code was copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't advocate any dress codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. --- TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: Just in case you were wondering, I understood that, and so my rap this morning was a reply to Jason as much as it was Buck, who tried to springboard off of it with more of his gotta keep the sinners in line any way we can horseshit. I don't advocate any kind of dress code, but *especially* one that tries to make women or men look sexless. I, for one, would love to hear Jason defend that idea, and doubt that he could. I extended my rap to cover the uniforms worn by various religious groups and cults. Historically, such uniforms (special dress for priests, monks, or nuns, or even recommended dress for lay people) are about mind control more than anything else. The priesthood always needed something to *make themselves seem better or more special, and wearing certain robes that no one else was able to wear was one way to achieve that, and thus achieve the control they wanted to maintain over their flocks. Note that in most cults or religious orders, the robes/costumes worn by lower class monks are usually different and less ornate and special than those worn by people higher up in the hierarchy. (Think the ludicrous costumes worn by TMO Rajas) This is also about control. Making the monks and nuns wear costumes, period, is also an aspect of control freakdom, because the higher-ups want to remind them at all times that they are part of an org that is better and more powerful than they are, and to remind them of their vows, meaning their willingness to follow rules laid on them by other people. One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on this forum recommending uniforms for monks, nuns, and other members of religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying to justify rules they never followed. Similarly, when people like Jason mouth off about unisex clothing, I think you'll find that they're always talking about making the women look more like men. That was the point of me posting my photo of the guy from Rocky Horror wearing a corset, garter belt,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
It's a paradox. Capitalism drives innovation and works well for the economic system. But, the same capitalism also has a destructive effect on the Political system and a destructive effect on the Cultural system. One of the major challenges for any modern civilisation is to insulate and protect the 'political system' and the 'cultural system' from the deleterious effects of capitalism and crass commercialism, while ensuring that the economic system functions in capitalism. --- dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Yep, out of balance fucking and gone fucking too far Over-Secularization; Heck, we're talking bad upbringing that allows for all this destructive spirituality of ill-disciplined over-sexualization. What are parents thinking when they let their offspring dress like they do? A lot of children will spend the rest of their adult lives in recovery straightening out their subtle-energy bodies for all the spiritual negligence of their parents and the predatory nature of modern societal spirituality over the modern family unit. Such materialism in exploitation on such early ages is completely appalling and demoralizing spirituality. Firstly, in public policy we certainly need a lot more meditation everywhere to bring better coherence to everyone everywhere. Git thee to a group meditation near you and nurture spiritual Nature for a change. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, long live the French and their high-mindedness in looking after the welfare of their children if the parents of these exploited children will not do it. Spiritually criminal parents subjecting their children to the exploitation of adolescent beauty-pageant-ing should certainly have their children taken away from them and have them be sent directly to the care of consciousness-based schools in the hopes of reforming any moral damage from such adolescent pageantry forced upon these children. We all should have a large public interest in protecting the welfare of children this way, -Buck jedi_spock wrote: deification of women by asymmetric dress-codes, or putting them on a pedestal, inversely stereotypes them and puts severe limitations on them. It's almost a form of reverse slavery. In other words, hyper-sexualisation of women is as bad as de-sexualisaton of women. Western society is as imbalanced as eastern societies. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans-girls-beauty\ -contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans- girls-beauty-contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children. html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424462/France-bans-girls-beaut\ y-contests-bid-stop-hyper-sexualisation-children.html http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/sexualisation-of-t he-western-woman/article4414595.ece http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/sexualisation-of-the-western-\ woman/article4414595.ece http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/sexualisation-of-the-western-\ woman/article4414595.ece ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jedi_spock@ wrote: --- s3raphita wrote: The line I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code was copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't advocate any dress codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. --- TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: Just in case you were wondering, I understood that, and so my rap this morning was a reply to Jason as much as it was Buck, who tried to springboard off of it with more of his gotta keep the sinners in line any way we can horseshit. I don't advocate any kind of dress code, but *especially* one that tries to make women or men look sexless. I, for one, would love to hear Jason defend that idea, and doubt that he could. I extended my rap to cover the uniforms worn by various religious groups and cults. Historically, such uniforms (special dress for priests, monks, or nuns, or even recommended dress for lay people) are about mind control more than anything else. The priesthood always needed something to *make themselves seem better or more special, and wearing certain robes that no one else was able to wear was one way to achieve that, and thus achieve the control they wanted to maintain over their flocks. Note that in most cults or religious orders, the robes/costumes worn by lower class monks are usually different and less ornate and special than those worn by people higher up in the hierarchy. (Think the ludicrous costumes worn by TMO Rajas) This is also about control. Making the monks and nuns wear costumes, period, is also an aspect of control freakdom, because the higher-ups want to remind them at all times that they are part of an org that is better and more powerful than they are, and to remind them of their vows, meaning their willingness to follow rules laid on them by
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution. - Bertrand Russell The human race has emerged from prehistory and has developed its culture for millennia but we're still confused about sex. I mean what could be simpler? Boy meets girl. Then . . . well you know what. Why is something as elementary and essential as the attraction between the sexes still a battlefield and the source of constant disputes (the War of the Sexes)? I've sometimes wondered if the problem is equality - the idea that men and women must be regarded as equal in all respects. If we allow ourselves to generalise, men do *seem* to be more promiscuous than women; women do *seem* to be looking for a permanent partner. (Proof? Gay males have far more partners and far more sex than straight men. Lesbians have far less sex than any other group. Heterosexuals lie between those two figures. This difference was recognised in the Victorian period when a marriage between a man and woman was assumed to be permanent (and divorces were regarded as scandalous) but at the same time there was an army of prostitutes to satisfy the novelty-seeking desires of the male population. I don't have an answer to the discrepancy - I just think we should look at the issue with wide-open eyes. Maybe it is just a result of women having being controlled by men for centuries; men who had their supremacy recognised by law. Now that that patriarchy is breaking down the differences between the sexual habits of men and women *may* vanish completely. But I certainly don't rule out the idea that such differences are rooted in biology. There are some wonderful ironies here. Is putting women on a pedestal (as happened in the 19th century with the cult of the lady an acknowledgment of women's superiority (or at least equality) or is it a cunning (probably subconscious) put down? I've quoted Malcolm Muggeridge twice before on FFL. Here it is again: It's impossible to string together three consecutive sentences about sex without making a complete hypocrite of yourself. This post must make me guilty as charged. One thing is for sure: the sexual utopia envisaged by the sixties revolutionaries has failed to materialise. On the other hand the days when a woman could die from sexual hysteria (it really did happen - see Ruskin's infatuation with Rose La Touche) are long gone!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution. - Bertrand Russell The human race has emerged from prehistory and has developed its culture for millennia but we're still confused about sex. I mean what could be simpler? Boy meets girl. Then . . . well you know what. Why is something as elementary and essential as the attraction between the sexes still a battlefield and the source of constant disputes (the War of the Sexes)? I've sometimes wondered if the problem is equality - the idea that men and women must be regarded as equal in all respects. If we allow ourselves to generalise, men do *seem* to be more promiscuous than women; women do *seem* to be looking for a permanent partner. (Proof? Gay males have far more partners and far more sex than straight men. Lesbians have far less sex than any other group. Heterosexuals lie between those two figures.) This difference was recognised in the Victorian period when a marriage between a man and woman was assumed to be permanent (and divorces were regarded as scandalous) but at the same time there was an army of prostitutes to satisfy the novelty-seeking desires of the male population. I don't have an answer to the discrepancy - I just think we should look at the issue with wide-open eyes. Maybe it is just a result of women having being controlled by men for centuries; men who had their supremacy recognised by law. Now that that patriarchy is breaking down the differences between the sexual habits of men and women *may* vanish completely. But I certainly don't rule out the idea that such differences are rooted in biology. There are some wonderful ironies here. Is putting women on a pedestal (as happened in the 19th century with the cult of the lady an acknowledgment of women's superiority (or at least equality) or is it a cunning (probably subconscious) put down? I've quoted Malcolm Muggeridge twice before on FFL. Here it is again: It's impossible to string together three consecutive sentences about sex without making a complete hypocrite of yourself. This post must make me guilty as charged. One thing is for sure: the sexual utopia envisaged by the sixties revolutionaries has failed to materialise. On the other hand the days when a woman could die from sexual hysteria (it really did happen - see Ruskin's infatuation with Rose La Touche) are long gone! Reply
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Fascinating, Richard and I appreciate how you show the connections among Wicca and tantra and shamanism and siddhis. On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:08 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 1/14/2014 6:46 AM, Share Long wrote: All women have some witch in them One physical existence of Materia Mater - Mother Nature, (not to deny the existence of the Sky Gods, Gauda, etc.) Wicca in a nutshell: the ability to cause change at will. Henotheism is the worship of one God, Mother Nature, without reference to the rest. All the polytheistic Sky Gods are personifications of the forces of Mother Nature - all the other Gods are worshiped, that deserve to be worshiped: the Sky itself, the Sun, the Moon, the Dawn; trees, rocks, totems, poles, rocks, and fetishes. According to Delia, a self-described Wiccan on Google Groups, explained Wicca as as set of practices, with no theology of its own. In this sense, Wicca is tantric - what works, works. A Wiccan is able to become immortal like the gods themselves - through a process of yoga. A Wiccan is then a siddha, a person who is able to transcend the limitations of the physical world. A tantric siddha adept like Rama Lenz can fly; fill lecture halls with golden light; walk through walls; make themselves invisible; and attain immortality. A Wiccan is thus a shaman, from the indian prakrit, shramana, a striver.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Re make it count on more than one level.: I guess actors have an excuse for doing some serious workouts . . . You're casting the role of Achilles in Troy. You've got a choice between Charles Hawtrey . . . . . . or Brad Pitt. How long do you want to think about it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
In most cases,with all that long, grey hair, they look to me, as if they can't wait to get home, to push Hansel and Gretel into the oven. Natural color is natural, but trimming the split ends, using a conditioner, and styling the cut, is my vast preference for women's grey or silver hair. As for guys, no more faux-hawks, or con-style mustache and goatees (done to DEATH), and no, the new neo-beatnik peach-fuzz beard look, is NOT a winner. Sincerely, Doctor Dumbass, style consultant, and inveterate loudmouth ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, I've only seen one woman in FF with hair down to her ankles but lots of women in the Dome with hair down to their waist, etc. I like that older women feel free enough to let their grey or greying hair grow long. On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Do the bibs always go with long hair down to the ankles, or just in the case of this one woman? Ann, bibs is farmer shortcut language for shapeless pale peach colored or coloured bib overalls and yes, they go down to the ankles. I think they wear them for warmth. Go figure! Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?!
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
And don't you forget it, Doc! All women have some witch in them cackle cackle. Of course witch comes from the same root as wise and many witches were herbalists and midwives and thus called up before The Inquisition and tortured and burned to death or drowned, etc. Go figure! On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 6:18 AM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: In most cases,with all that long, grey hair, they look to me, as if they can't wait to get home, to push Hansel and Gretel into the oven. Natural color is natural, but trimming the split ends, using a conditioner, and styling the cut, is my vast preference for women's grey or silver hair. As for guys, no more faux-hawks, or con-style mustache and goatees (done to DEATH), and no, the new neo-beatnik peach-fuzz beard look, is NOT a winner. Sincerely, Doctor Dumbass, style consultant, and inveterate loudmouth ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, I've only seen one woman in FF with hair down to her ankles but lots of women in the Dome with hair down to their waist, etc. I like that older women feel free enough to let their grey or greying hair grow long. On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Do the bibs always go with long hair down to the ankles, or just in the case of this one woman? Ann, bibs is farmer shortcut language for shapeless pale peach colored or coloured bib overalls and yes, they go down to the ankles. I think they wear them for warmth. Go figure! Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?!
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
On 1/14/2014 6:17 AM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: Sincerely, Doctor Dumbass, style consultant, and inveterate loudmouth So, you informants ARE interested in what people wear. LoL!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: And don't you forget it, Doc! All women have some witch in them cackle cackle. Of course witch comes from the same root as wise and many witches were herbalists and midwives and thus called up before The Inquisition and tortured and burned to death or drowned, etc. Go figure! A psychologist friend of mine tells me that the modern counterpart of the witch for many of his male patients is the stalker ex who won't let go when she's been dumped. Seriously. The phenomenon has become so widespread that they have seminars on compulsive stalkers at their conferences. The scenario is simple: no matter how many times they're told that they're not wanted, they refuse to go away, and harass the person who dumped them forever. There's even a well-known Internet meme about the subject, some examples posted below. Remind you of anyone? :-) :-) On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 6:18 AM, doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... wrote: In most cases,with all that long, grey hair, they look to me, as if they can't wait to get home, to push Hansel and Gretel into the oven. Natural color is natural, but trimming the split ends, using a conditioner, and styling the cut, is my vast preference for women's grey or silver hair. As for guys, no more faux-hawks, or con-style mustache and goatees (done to DEATH), and no, the new neo-beatnik peach-fuzz beard look, is NOT a winner. Sincerely, Doctor Dumbass, style consultant, and inveterate loudmouth ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, I've only seen one woman in FF with hair down to her ankles but lots of women in the Dome with hair down to their waist, etc. I like that older women feel free enough to let their grey or greying hair grow long. On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26 AM, authfriend@ authfriend@ wrote:  Do the bibs always go with long hair down to the ankles, or just in the case of this one woman? Ann, bibs is farmer shortcut language for shapeless pale peach colored or coloured bib overalls and yes, they go down to the ankles. I think they wear them for warmth. Go figure! Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
On 1/14/2014 7:14 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: All women have some witch in them cackle cackle. Of course witch comes from the same root as wise and many witches were herbalists and midwives and thus called up before The Inquisition and tortured and burned to death or drowned, etc. Go figure! */A psychologist friend of mine tells me that the modern counterpart of the witch for many of his male patients/* Addressing the important issues! So, I wonder how many teens in high school have read or saw a Harry Potter book or episode? Apparently the FFL political silly season has already begun! Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
On 1/14/2014 6:46 AM, Share Long wrote: All women have some witch in them One physical existence of Materia Mater - Mother Nature, (not to deny the existence of the Sky Gods, Gauda, etc.) Wicca in a nutshell: the ability to cause change at will. Henotheism is the worship of one God, Mother Nature, without reference to the rest. All the polytheistic Sky Gods are personifications of the forces of Mother Nature - all the other Gods are worshiped, that deserve to be worshiped: the Sky itself, the Sun, the Moon, the Dawn; trees, rocks, totems, poles, rocks, and fetishes. According to Delia, a self-described Wiccan on Google Groups, explained Wicca as as set of practices, with no theology of its own. In this sense, Wicca is tantric - what works, works. A Wiccan is able to become immortal like the gods themselves - through a process of yoga. A Wiccan is then a siddha, a person who is able to transcend the limitations of the physical world. A tantric siddha adept like Rama Lenz can fly; fill lecture halls with golden light; walk through walls; make themselves invisible; and attain immortality. A Wiccan is thus a shaman, from the indian prakrit, shramana, a striver.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: In most cases,with all that long, grey hair, they look to me, as if they can't wait to get home, to push Hansel and Gretel into the oven. Natural color is natural, but trimming the split ends, using a conditioner, and styling the cut, is my vast preference for women's grey or silver hair. As for guys, no more faux-hawks, or con-style mustache and goatees (done to DEATH), and no, the new neo-beatnik peach-fuzz beard look, is NOT a winner. Sincerely, Doctor Dumbass, style consultant, and inveterate loudmouth See, another zinger and funny too. Keep 'em comin', you're makin' my day so far. You must have eaten your Cheerios for breakfast... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, I've only seen one woman in FF with hair down to her ankles but lots of women in the Dome with hair down to their waist, etc. I like that older women feel free enough to let their grey or greying hair grow long. On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Do the bibs always go with long hair down to the ankles, or just in the case of this one woman? Ann, bibs is farmer shortcut language for shapeless pale peach colored or coloured bib overalls and yes, they go down to the ankles. I think they wear them for warmth. Go figure! Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: And don't you forget it, Doc! All women have some witch in them cackle cackle. Of course witch comes from the same root as wise and many witches were herbalists and midwives and thus called up before The Inquisition and tortured and burned to death or drowned, etc. Go figure! A psychologist friend of mine tells me that the modern counterpart of the witch for many of his male patients is the stalker ex who won't let go when she's been dumped. Seriously. The phenomenon has become so widespread that they have seminars on compulsive stalkers at their conferences. The scenario is simple: no matter how many times they're told that they're not wanted, they refuse to go away, and harass the person who dumped them forever. There's even a well-known Internet meme about the subject, some examples posted below. Remind you of anyone? :-) You, dummy. :-) On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 6:18 AM, doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... wrote: In most cases,with all that long, grey hair, they look to me, as if they can't wait to get home, to push Hansel and Gretel into the oven. Natural color is natural, but trimming the split ends, using a conditioner, and styling the cut, is my vast preference for women's grey or silver hair. As for guys, no more faux-hawks, or con-style mustache and goatees (done to DEATH), and no, the new neo-beatnik peach-fuzz beard look, is NOT a winner. Sincerely, Doctor Dumbass, style consultant, and inveterate loudmouth ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, I've only seen one woman in FF with hair down to her ankles but lots of women in the Dome with hair down to their waist, etc. I like that older women feel free enough to let their grey or greying hair grow long. On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26 AM, authfriend@ authfriend@ wrote:  Do the bibs always go with long hair down to the ankles, or just in the case of this one woman? Ann, bibs is farmer shortcut language for shapeless pale peach colored or coloured bib overalls and yes, they go down to the ankles. I think they wear them for warmth. Go figure! Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?!
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Its a funny (not really) thing, to see, as men in our culture, become softer and softer, they compensate with these ridiculous masculine stereotypes. The last accountant I saw on some game show, looked like a lifer in a maximum security prison. In 20 or 30 years, someone is going to clean up big time; tatt removal for seniors, so we can no longer see through gramp's t-shirt, that he was once a Bad-Ass M* F* , or similar. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: In most cases,with all that long, grey hair, they look to me, as if they can't wait to get home, to push Hansel and Gretel into the oven. Natural color is natural, but trimming the split ends, using a conditioner, and styling the cut, is my vast preference for women's grey or silver hair. As for guys, no more faux-hawks, or con-style mustache and goatees (done to DEATH), and no, the new neo-beatnik peach-fuzz beard look, is NOT a winner. Sincerely, Doctor Dumbass, style consultant, and inveterate loudmouth See, another zinger and funny too. Keep 'em comin', you're makin' my day so far. You must have eaten your Cheerios for breakfast... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, I've only seen one woman in FF with hair down to her ankles but lots of women in the Dome with hair down to their waist, etc. I like that older women feel free enough to let their grey or greying hair grow long. On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Do the bibs always go with long hair down to the ankles, or just in the case of this one woman? Ann, bibs is farmer shortcut language for shapeless pale peach colored or coloured bib overalls and yes, they go down to the ankles. I think they wear them for warmth. Go figure! Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Re The last accountant I saw on some game show, looked like a lifer in a maximum security prison.: I always wonder when I see a muscular type whether they're unemployed or have just got out of prison. Who else has the time to put in?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath had different names. It is, however, pure and proceeds from God (the Unified Field). It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever, they become brethren. -John Woolman, Quaker 20th Century Quakers coming to Fairfield, Iowa in a form of spiritual direct-action peace-activism as re-enforcement joining with the large group meditations facilitated by Transcendental Meditation(TM) in Fairfield held a natural affinity to Quakers. To come as re-enforcement to the enterprise of what was identified then as the spiritual Meissner Effect (ME) of group consciousness had a recognized legitimacy to spiritual Quakerism. That corporate group spirituality is a Quaker practice that particularly attracted a number of old Quakers in to the TM movement early on. Initially upon coming to Fairfield, Iowa to re-enforce the aggregate numbers in meditation the old-style Quakers joined in alongside the TM meditations; as when in Rome do as the Romans do. This history in context now becomes an additional chapter in The Quakers of Iowa. See: http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm The Quakers of Iowa A history of the Quaker settlement of Iowa including the nature of the under ground rail road in 19th Century Iowa. Written by Louis T. Jones, 1914 http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm For sometime, the transcending meditation group practices of Quakers as the Society of Friends was a dominant spiritual practice in the settlement and cultivation of America and as so often has happened with Knowledge in sequence of time the now ancient silent transcendental Quaker practice fell crashing upon shoals of spiritually ignorant ideologies and the primitive Quakerism itself almost entirely foundered out of sight as a spiritual movement of the Meissner Effect [ME] of consciousness development in group meditations. The parallels of these two spiritual movements (TM and the old Society of Friends) as groups are remarkable to see and witness from inside and out. -Buck, an old Quaker and conservative meditator in the Dome No brag just fact. Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. George Fox and early Quakers long ago cognized the spiritual value of the group affect of transcending meditations. Since the 1650's that has been the corporate practice of Quakers. Seriously, -Buck in the Dome What would George Fox Say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs The Fairfield, Iowa group meditation then became the largest group to Be with as the group of transcending meditators like Quakers gathered in Iowa from the late 1970's. Quite a number of old-style Quakers like me joined on with the large group meditation in Fairfield, Iowa from the beginning then as recognized Quaker support in direct-action in the value of our form of Friends spiritual practice that the TM'ers had adapted to their own ends. What the Quakers have known all along Maharishi then had recognized as the Meissner Effect of consciousness in the corporate silent practice of inner transcending meditation like the Quaker meeting has long provided. A nice thing about the Quaker group practice as the Friends Meeting itself is that it is stripped of religious forms, of alters, brahmasthans, steeples, no stages, no ostentatious hats or robes such like some clergy and TM-Rajas and other climbers would wear above others. The nice thing about Quaker Meeting as a place is that it is without the veneers of formal religion otherwise. Self run and no paid clergy. You just 'go in' sitting with others and the field effect of absolute, bliss, consciousness that the meeting of Friends creates for yourself and others. Jai George Fox, -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Quaker Meeting for Worship, 17th Century. Entering into this form of worship. . “… the first that enters into the place of your meeting, be not careless, nor wander up and down either in body or mind, but innocently sit down in some place and turn in thy mind to the Light, and wait upon God (The Unified Field Transcendent) simply, as if none were present but the Lord, and here thou art strong. When the next that come in, let them in simplicity and heart sit down and turn to the same Light, and wait in the Spirit, and so all the rest coming in fear of the Lord sit down in pure stillness and silence of all flesh, and wait in the Light. A few that are thus gathered by the arm of the Lord into the unity of the Spirit, this is a sweet and precious meeting in which all are met with the Lord…. Those who are brought to a pure, still waiting on God in the Spirit are come nearer to God than words are… though not a word be spoken to the hearing of the ear. In such a meeting where the presence and power of God is felt, there will be an unwillingness to part asunder, being ready to say in yourselves, it is good to be here, and this is the end of all words and writings, to bring people to the eternal living word.” -1660 -Alexander Parker, Letters of Early Friends, ed. A.R. Barclay (London; Darton and Harvey, 1841), pp. 365-66. Alexander Parker was a close companion of George Fox. There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath had different names. It is, however, pure and proceeds from God (the Unified Field). It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever, they become brethren. -John Woolman, Quaker 20th Century Quakers coming to Fairfield, Iowa in a form of spiritual direct-action peace-activism as re-enforcement joining with the large group meditations facilitated by Transcendental Meditation(TM) in Fairfield held a natural affinity to Quakers. To come as re-enforcement to the enterprise of what was identified then as the spiritual Meissner Effect (ME) of group consciousness had a recognized legitimacy to spiritual Quakerism. That corporate group spirituality is a Quaker practice that particularly attracted a number of old Quakers in to the TM movement early on. Initially upon coming to Fairfield, Iowa to re-enforce the aggregate numbers in meditation the old-style Quakers joined in alongside the TM meditations; as when in Rome do as the Romans do. This history in context now becomes an additional chapter in The Quakers of Iowa. See: http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm The Quakers of Iowa A history of the Quaker settlement of Iowa including the nature of the under ground rail road in 19th Century Iowa. Written by Louis T. Jones, 1914 http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm For sometime, the transcending meditation group practices of Quakers as the Society of Friends was a dominant spiritual practice in the settlement and cultivation of America and as so often has happened with Knowledge in sequence of time the now ancient silent transcendental Quaker practice fell crashing upon shoals of spiritually ignorant ideologies and the primitive Quakerism itself almost entirely foundered out of sight as a spiritual movement of the Meissner Effect [ME] of consciousness development in group meditations. The parallels of these two spiritual movements (TM and the old Society of Friends) as groups are remarkable to see and witness from inside and out. -Buck, an old Quaker and conservative meditator in the Dome No brag just fact. Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. George Fox and early Quakers long ago cognized the spiritual value of the group affect of transcending meditations. Since the 1650's that has been the corporate practice of Quakers. Seriously, -Buck in the Dome What would George Fox Say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs The Fairfield, Iowa group meditation then became the largest group to Be with as the group of transcending meditators like Quakers gathered in Iowa from the late 1970's. Quite a number of old-style Quakers like me joined on with the large group meditation in Fairfield, Iowa from the beginning then as recognized Quaker support in direct-action in the value of our form of Friends spiritual practice that the TM'ers had adapted to their own ends. What the Quakers have known all along Maharishi then had recognized as the Meissner Effect of consciousness in
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Looks like Al's little known half-nephew, Esposito E=me 2 Einstein, doing time, for defrauding the celebrity look-alike outfit he was signed up with, and other related offenses. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re The last accountant I saw on some game show, looked like a lifer in a maximum security prison.: I always wonder when I see a muscular type whether they're unemployed or have just got out of prison. Who else has the time to put in?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re The last accountant I saw on some game show, looked like a lifer in a maximum security prison.: I always wonder when I see a muscular type whether they're unemployed or have just got out of prison. Who else has the time to put in? Who has the time is not the real question for me. Who has the desire is more the point. What could possibly compel one to want to spend all that energy in order to look lean and muscular? Not that looking that way is a bad thing. Unless you're attaining the fitness and leanness accomplishing something other than wearing out the machines at the gym, that is what I find interesting and worthwhile. Stack 150 bales of hay, chop a cord of wood but, for God's and my sake, get your ass off the stationary bike and make it count on more than one level.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
The uni sex dress CODE? Will the code include enforcement and punishment? Sounds like censorship and tyranny to me, the Inquisition reappearing, taking a new angle on repressing and suppressing sexuality. Besides being wrong imo, it's also impractical, doesn't work, backfires, causes backlash, etc. Sex is here to stay. The answer to its being used wisely is to educate and inspire people to indulge wisely. I don't think a uni sex dress code is a step in that direction. On Sunday, January 12, 2014 9:25 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Re Tolstoy gave the right advice.: Possibly. But, as I said, it's the hypocrisy of Tolstoy that grates with me. The English conservative journalist Malcolm Muggeridge (a true British eccentric but a first-rate broadcaster) was a big fan of Tolstoy. One time in the 1960s he gave a talk attacking sexual promiscuity. To be fair to Muggeridge he did mention in the talk that as his audience were all young they couldn't accept or comprehend what he was saying. They would only understand him when they matured. An acquaintance of his later claimed that Muggeridge said to him at the time that if he had been a student in those heady sixties days he'd have slept with all the girls he could! To me the key is that you should always be true to what you are; who you are; where you're at. And as the sexual drive is one of the strongest impulses pushing us along we have a choice: 1) go with the flow, in which case you can draw on your sex energy to motivate you in life's struggle or 2) resist the sex impulse, in which case you'll spend your life labouring *against* your own body energies, as well as having to cope with the problems life throws at you. I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?! Sexual energy is life force energy. Suppress or repress at your peril. Better to teach people how to flow with it in beneficial ways imo. On Monday, January 13, 2014 5:41 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: s3; The uni-sex dress-code, which uni-sex dress-code could you favor for us? Which one? The bib-overall long has been a great equalizer. Liberating and very fitting in so many ways. -Buck s3raphita wrote: I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code. Re Tolstoy gave the right advice.: Possibly. But, as I said, it's the hypocrisy of Tolstoy that grates with me. The English conservative journalist Malcolm Muggeridge (a true British eccentric but a first-rate broadcaster) was a big fan of Tolstoy. One time in the 1960s he gave a talk attacking sexual promiscuity. To be fair to Muggeridge he did mention in the talk that as his audience were all young they couldn't accept or comprehend what he was saying. They would only understand him when they matured. An acquaintance of his later claimed that Muggeridge said to him at the time that if he had been a student in those heady sixties days he'd have slept with all the girls he could! To me the key is that you should always be true to what you are; who you are; where you're at. And as the sexual drive is one of the strongest impulses pushing us along we have a choice: 1) go with the flow, in which case you can draw on your sex energy to motivate you in life's struggle or 2) resist the sex impulse, in which case you'll spend your life labouring *against* your own body energies, as well as having to cope with the problems life throws at you. I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Ann, bibs is farmer shortcut language for shapeless pale peach colored or coloured bib overalls and yes, they go down to the ankles. I think they wear them for warmth. Go figure! On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:54 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?! Are there really women who walk around FF in shapeless bibs down to their ankles? Incredible. Could you post picture (you can block out the face if necessary). I would love to see this! And why do they do this? Are they old, young, crazy? Tell me more! Sexual energy is life force energy. Suppress or repress at your peril. Better to teach people how to flow with it in beneficial ways imo. On Monday, January 13, 2014 5:41 AM, dhamiltony2k5@... dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: s3; The uni-sex dress-code, which uni-sex dress-code could you favor for us? Which one? The bib-overall long has been a great equalizer. Liberating and very fitting in so many ways. -Buck s3raphita wrote: I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code. Re Tolstoy gave the right advice.: Possibly. But, as I said, it's the hypocrisy of Tolstoy that grates with me. The English conservative journalist Malcolm Muggeridge (a true British eccentric but a first-rate broadcaster) was a big fan of Tolstoy. One time in the 1960s he gave a talk attacking sexual promiscuity. To be fair to Muggeridge he did mention in the talk that as his audience were all young they couldn't accept or comprehend what he was saying. They would only understand him when they matured. An acquaintance of his later claimed that Muggeridge said to him at the time that if he had been a student in those heady sixties days he'd have slept with all the girls he could! To me the key is that you should always be true to what you are; who you are; where you're at. And as the sexual drive is one of the strongest impulses pushing us along we have a choice: 1) go with the flow, in which case you can draw on your sex energy to motivate you in life's struggle or 2) resist the sex impulse, in which case you'll spend your life labouring *against* your own body energies, as well as having to cope with the problems life throws at you. I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita wrote: The line I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code was copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't advocate any dress codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. Just in case you were wondering, I understood that, and so my rap this morning was a reply to Jason as much as it was Buck, who tried to springboard off of it with more of his gotta keep the sinners in line any way we can horseshit. I don't advocate any kind of dress code, but *especially* one that tries to make women or men look sexless. I, for one, would love to hear Jason defend that idea, and doubt that he could. I extended my rap to cover the uniforms worn by various religious groups and cults. Historically, such uniforms (special dress for priests, monks, or nuns, or even recommended dress for lay people) are about mind control more than anything else. The priesthood always needed something to *make themselves seem better or more special, and wearing certain robes that no one else was able to wear was one way to achieve that, and thus achieve the control they wanted to maintain over their flocks. Note that in most cults or religious orders, the robes/costumes worn by lower class monks are usually different and less ornate and special than those worn by people higher up in the hierarchy. (Think the ludicrous costumes worn by TMO Rajas) This is also about control. Making the monks and nuns wear costumes, period, is also an aspect of control freakdom, because the higher-ups want to remind them at all times that they are part of an org that is better and more powerful than they are, and to remind them of their vows, meaning their willingness to follow rules laid on them by other people. One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on this forum recommending uniforms for monks, nuns, and other members of religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying to justify rules they never followed. Similarly, when people like Jason mouth off about unisex clothing, I think you'll find that they're always talking about making the women look more like men. That was the point of me posting my photo of the guy from Rocky Horror wearing a corset, garter belt, stockings, and high heels. If ALL men and women dressed like that, that would be unisex. But I think we all know that's not exactly what Jason had in mind. I kinda doubt he's going to be the first in line to get his dress and high heels and wear them everywhere. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
turq, good point that unisex means women dressing like men. I hadn't thought of that because for me wearing uniforms happened in Catholic schools and they did want the girls to look different from the boys, albeit, like one another. I think part of uniform wearing is to simplify life and help a person have their attention on something other than what to wear to school. Also uniforms are easier on the parents budget. I'm fascinated by the topic of uniforms because I wore them to school from age 6 to 18. Then when I went to college, everyone wore blue jeans so that was also a bit of a uniform. To this day, I tend to be nonchalant about clothing, tending to wear what's comfortable. I've noticed that people for whom clothing is a medium of expression will find ways to express their individuality even when wearing a uniform. On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:52 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita wrote: The line I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code was copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't advocate any dress codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. Just in case you were wondering, I understood that, and so my rap this morning was a reply to Jason as much as it was Buck, who tried to springboard off of it with more of his gotta keep the sinners in line any way we can horseshit. I don't advocate any kind of dress code, but *especially* one that tries to make women or men look sexless. I, for one, would love to hear Jason defend that idea, and doubt that he could. I extended my rap to cover the uniforms worn by various religious groups and cults. Historically, such uniforms (special dress for priests, monks, or nuns, or even recommended dress for lay people) are about mind control more than anything else. The priesthood always needed something to *make themselves seem better or more special, and wearing certain robes that no one else was able to wear was one way to achieve that, and thus achieve the control they wanted to maintain over their flocks. Note that in most cults or religious orders, the robes/costumes worn by lower class monks are usually different and less ornate and special than those worn by people higher up in the hierarchy. (Think the ludicrous costumes worn by TMO Rajas) This is also about control. Making the monks and nuns wear costumes, period, is also an aspect of control freakdom, because the higher-ups want to remind them at all times that they are part of an org that is better and more powerful than they are, and to remind them of their vows, meaning their willingness to follow rules laid on them by other people. One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on this forum recommending uniforms for monks, nuns, and other members of religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying to justify rules they never followed. Similarly, when people like Jason mouth off about unisex clothing, I think you'll find that they're always talking about making the women look more like men. That was the point of me posting my photo of the guy from Rocky Horror wearing a corset, garter belt, stockings, and high heels. If ALL men and women dressed like that, that would be unisex. But I think we all know that's not exactly what Jason had in mind. I kinda doubt he's going to be the first in line to get his dress and high heels and wear them everywhere. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Judy, I've only seen one woman in FF with hair down to her ankles but lots of women in the Dome with hair down to their waist, etc. I like that older women feel free enough to let their grey or greying hair grow long. On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Do the bibs always go with long hair down to the ankles, or just in the case of this one woman? Ann, bibs is farmer shortcut language for shapeless pale peach colored or coloured bib overalls and yes, they go down to the ankles. I think they wear them for warmth. Go figure! Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: turq, good point that unisex means women dressing like men. I hadn't thought of that because for me wearing uniforms happened in Catholic schools and they did want the girls to look different from the boys, albeit, like one another. I think part of uniform wearing is to simplify life and help a person have their attention on something other than what to wear to school. Also uniforms are easier on the parents budget. I'm fascinated by the topic of uniforms because I wore them to school from age 6 to 18. Then when I went to college, everyone wore blue jeans so that was also a bit of a uniform. To this day, I tend to be nonchalant about clothing, tending to wear what's comfortable. I've noticed that people for whom clothing is a medium of expression will find ways to express their individuality even when wearing a uniform. True that. Back in my TM daze, my medium of expression was ties. I mean, you can't look all that much different from the other TM Teacher Clones in your TM Teacher suit, right? And the rules said you had to wear a tie (even to the beach...really...I heard Maharishi say this several times), but they didn't specify what *kind* of tie. Heh heh. I specialized in Tastefully Outrageous Ties. I still have a collection of Jerry Garcia ties that are now worth 5-10X what I paid for them on eBay. Jerry (whatever else he was into) had great taste as a watercolor artist, and so when those designs were transferred to ties, what you got was great taste, not psychedelia. I had a number of museum ties, patterns taken from works of art in museum, that I thought were pretty damned tasteful, but which were so colorful that many might have considered them...uh...unfashionable. My favorite tie to wear during the six months I worked and lived at the TM National Headquarters at the end of Sunset Blvd. was a nice pale blue tie with a line drawing on it of a female nude. The drawing was lifted from a famous artist, but was subtle and (IMO) tasteful, and so I liked wearing the tie for aesthetic reasons. But the tie was also useful as a Consciousness Test. As I said, the design was subtle, so from a distance it probably looked like swirls of black lines on a blue background. But get closer, focus on it for half a second, and it was obviously a fairly voluptuous female nude. So I'd wear that tie around National, all day, and count the number of people who even noticed it. Interestingly -- and perhaps revealing of the state of attention of full-time TMers -- I could often get through a whole day without anyone noticing. I once wore it to a meeting we were having with visitors from Seelisberg, the higher ups of the European TMO. Jerry Jarvis was there, and all of the US leaders, but not a single person noticed the tie. And I don't mean no one acknowledged it. I'd been running this Consciousness Test long enough at this point to know the difference. They just didn't care enough or weren't conscious enough to notice that one of their number was sitting there wearing a tie with a naked babe on it. The memory of that meeting still cracks me up to this day. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
hmmm, I wonder if that group of Seelisburg higher ups included anyone on FFL and if he noticed... Jeez, I can be so point value! On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:40 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: turq, good point that unisex means women dressing like men. I hadn't thought of that because for me wearing uniforms happened in Catholic schools and they did want the girls to look different from the boys, albeit, like one another. I think part of uniform wearing is to simplify life and help a person have their attention on something other than what to wear to school. Also uniforms are easier on the parents budget. I'm fascinated by the topic of uniforms because I wore them to school from age 6 to 18. Then when I went to college, everyone wore blue jeans so that was also a bit of a uniform. To this day, I tend to be nonchalant about clothing, tending to wear what's comfortable. I've noticed that people for whom clothing is a medium of expression will find ways to express their individuality even when wearing a uniform. True that. Back in my TM daze, my medium of expression was ties. I mean, you can't look all that much different from the other TM Teacher Clones in your TM Teacher suit, right? And the rules said you had to wear a tie (even to the beach...really...I heard Maharishi say this several times), but they didn't specify what *kind* of tie. Heh heh. I specialized in Tastefully Outrageous Ties. I still have a collection of Jerry Garcia ties that are now worth 5-10X what I paid for them on eBay. Jerry (whatever else he was into) had great taste as a watercolor artist, and so when those designs were transferred to ties, what you got was great taste, not psychedelia. I had a number of museum ties, patterns taken from works of art in museum, that I thought were pretty damned tasteful, but which were so colorful that many might have considered them...uh...unfashionable. My favorite tie to wear during the six months I worked and lived at the TM National Headquarters at the end of Sunset Blvd. was a nice pale blue tie with a line drawing on it of a female nude. The drawing was lifted from a famous artist, but was subtle and (IMO) tasteful, and so I liked wearing the tie for aesthetic reasons. But the tie was also useful as a Consciousness Test. As I said, the design was subtle, so from a distance it probably looked like swirls of black lines on a blue background. But get closer, focus on it for half a second, and it was obviously a fairly voluptuous female nude. So I'd wear that tie around National, all day, and count the number of people who even noticed it. Interestingly -- and perhaps revealing of the state of attention of full-time TMers -- I could often get through a whole day without anyone noticing. I once wore it to a meeting we were having with visitors from Seelisberg, the higher ups of the European TMO. Jerry Jarvis was there, and all of the US leaders, but not a single person noticed the tie. And I don't mean no one acknowledged it. I'd been running this Consciousness Test long enough at this point to know the difference. They just didn't care enough or weren't conscious enough to notice that one of their number was sitting there wearing a tie with a naked babe on it. The memory of that meeting still cracks me up to this day. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: hmmm, I wonder if that group of Seelisburg higher ups included anyone on FFL and if he noticed... Jeez, I can be so point value! Not likely. By that time (early 1977) very few Americans were left in the ultimate TM hierarchy as I understand it. They were mainly uptight Germans at this meeting. Not an interesting tie -- or aura -- in the bunch. :-) The only person on FFL that I know I've met in person was Joe, and he lived at National at the same time I did, so he would probably remember my ties. We bailed from the TMO at about the same time, too, found ourselves living in the same apartment complex in Marina del Rey, and became good friends. Other than him, I think the only contact I've ever had with people here was via their written words on FFL or a.m.t. Still, that's often enough. Some people you instantly recognize as friends, and others...uh...not so much. Speaking of the latter, try not to 'bite' on the renewed MGC trolling. Judging from Message View, they're trying to nitpick at you SO THAT you'll respond to them. Ignore them, and it'll become more obvious that they don't have anything to say *except* ragging on someone else. On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:40 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: turq, good point that unisex means women dressing like men. I hadn't thought of that because for me wearing uniforms happened in Catholic schools and they did want the girls to look different from the boys, albeit, like one another. I think part of uniform wearing is to simplify life and help a person have their attention on something other than what to wear to school. Also uniforms are easier on the parents budget. I'm fascinated by the topic of uniforms because I wore them to school from age 6 to 18. Then when I went to college, everyone wore blue jeans so that was also a bit of a uniform. To this day, I tend to be nonchalant about clothing, tending to wear what's comfortable. I've noticed that people for whom clothing is a medium of expression will find ways to express their individuality even when wearing a uniform. True that. Back in my TM daze, my medium of expression was ties. I mean, you can't look all that much different from the other TM Teacher Clones in your TM Teacher suit, right? And the rules said you had to wear a tie (even to the beach...really...I heard Maharishi say this several times), but they didn't specify what *kind* of tie. Heh heh. I specialized in Tastefully Outrageous Ties. I still have a collection of Jerry Garcia ties that are now worth 5-10X what I paid for them on eBay. Jerry (whatever else he was into) had great taste as a watercolor artist, and so when those designs were transferred to ties, what you got was great taste, not psychedelia. I had a number of museum ties, patterns taken from works of art in museum, that I thought were pretty damned tasteful, but which were so colorful that many might have considered them...uh...unfashionable. My favorite tie to wear during the six months I worked and lived at the TM National Headquarters at the end of Sunset Blvd. was a nice pale blue tie with a line drawing on it of a female nude. The drawing was lifted from a famous artist, but was subtle and (IMO) tasteful, and so I liked wearing the tie for aesthetic reasons. But the tie was also useful as a Consciousness Test. As I said, the design was subtle, so from a distance it probably looked like swirls of black lines on a blue background. But get closer, focus on it for half a second, and it was obviously a fairly voluptuous female nude. So I'd wear that tie around National, all day, and count the number of people who even noticed it. Interestingly -- and perhaps revealing of the state of attention of full-time TMers -- I could often get through a whole day without anyone noticing. I once wore it to a meeting we were having with visitors from Seelisberg, the higher ups of the European TMO. Jerry Jarvis was there, and all of the US leaders, but not a single person noticed the tie. And I don't mean no one acknowledged it. I'd been running this Consciousness Test long enough at this point to know the difference. They just didn't care enough or weren't conscious enough to notice that one of their number was sitting there wearing a tie with a naked babe on it. The memory of that meeting still cracks me up to this day. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Judy, your admonition doesn't make any sense. I've already replied to both you and Ann! On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:43 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Translation: Barry's afraid Share will mess up again if she responds to questions posed to her. Share, don't let Barry tell you what to post and what not to post. Still, that's often enough. Some people you instantly recognize as friends, and others...uh...not so much. Speaking of the latter, try not to 'bite' on the renewed MGC trolling. Judging from Message View, they're trying to nitpick at you SO THAT you'll respond to them. Ignore them, and it'll become more obvious that they don't have anything to say *except* ragging on someone else.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
You have a ton of great old TM stories - thanks for posting that one Barry. On Mon, 1/13/14, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 13, 2014, 4:40 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: turq, good point that unisex means women dressing like men. I hadn't thought of that because for me wearing uniforms happened in Catholic schools and they did want the girls to look different from the boys, albeit, like one another. I think part of uniform wearing is to simplify life and help a person have their attention on something other than what to wear to school. Also uniforms are easier on the parents budget. I'm fascinated by the topic of uniforms because I wore them to school from age 6 to 18. Then when I went to college, everyone wore blue jeans so that was also a bit of a uniform. To this day, I tend to be nonchalant about clothing, tending to wear what's comfortable. I've noticed that people for whom clothing is a medium of expression will find ways to express their individuality even when wearing a uniform. True that. Back in my TM daze, my medium of expression was ties. I mean, you can't look all that much different from the other TM Teacher Clones in your TM Teacher suit, right? And the rules said you had to wear a tie (even to the beach...really...I heard Maharishi say this several times), but they didn't specify what *kind* of tie. Heh heh. I specialized in Tastefully Outrageous Ties. I still have a collection of Jerry Garcia ties that are now worth 5-10X what I paid for them on eBay. Jerry (whatever else he was into) had great taste as a watercolor artist, and so when those designs were transferred to ties, what you got was great taste, not psychedelia. I had a number of museum ties, patterns taken from works of art in museum, that I thought were pretty damned tasteful, but which were so colorful that many might have considered them...uh...unfashionable. My favorite tie to wear during the six months I worked and lived at the TM National Headquarters at the end of Sunset Blvd. was a nice pale blue tie with a line drawing on it of a female nude. The drawing was lifted from a famous artist, but was subtle and (IMO) tasteful, and so I liked wearing the tie for aesthetic reasons. But the tie was also useful as a Consciousness Test. As I said, the design was subtle, so from a distance it probably looked like swirls of black lines on a blue background. But get closer, focus on it for half a second, and it was obviously a fairly voluptuous female nude. So I'd wear that tie around National, all day, and count the number of people who even noticed it. Interestingly -- and perhaps revealing of the state of attention of full-time TMers -- I could often get through a whole day without anyone noticing. I once wore it to a meeting we were having with visitors from Seelisberg, the higher ups of the European TMO. Jerry Jarvis was there, and all of the US leaders, but not a single person noticed the tie. And I don't mean no one acknowledged it. I'd been running this Consciousness Test long enough at this point to know the difference. They just didn't care enough or weren't conscious enough to notice that one of their number was sitting there wearing a tie with a naked babe on it. The memory of that meeting still cracks me up to this day. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- s3raphita wrote: The line I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code was copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't advocate any dress codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. --- TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: Just in case you were wondering, I understood that, and so my rap this morning was a reply to Jason as much as it was Buck, who tried to springboard off of it with more of his gotta keep the sinners in line any way we can horseshit. I don't advocate any kind of dress code, but *especially* one that tries to make women or men look sexless. I, for one, would love to hear Jason defend that idea, and doubt that he could. I extended my rap to cover the uniforms worn by various religious groups and cults. Historically, such uniforms (special dress for priests, monks, or nuns, or even recommended dress for lay people) are about mind control more than anything else. The priesthood always needed something to *make themselves seem better or more special, and wearing certain robes that no one else was able to wear was one way to achieve that, and thus achieve the control they wanted to maintain over their flocks. Note that in most cults or religious orders, the robes/costumes worn by lower class monks are usually different and less ornate and special than those worn by people higher up in the hierarchy. (Think the ludicrous costumes worn by TMO Rajas) This is also about control. Making the monks and nuns wear costumes, period, is also an aspect of control freakdom, because the higher-ups want to remind them at all times that they are part of an org that is better and more powerful than they are, and to remind them of their vows, meaning their willingness to follow rules laid on them by other people. One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on this forum recommending uniforms for monks, nuns, and other members of religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying to justify rules they never followed. Similarly, when people like Jason mouth off about unisex clothing, I think you'll find that they're always talking about making the women look more like men. That was the point of me posting my photo of the guy from Rocky Horror wearing a corset, garter belt, stockings, and high heels. If ALL men and women dressed like that, that would be unisex. But I think we all know that's not exactly what Jason had in mind. I kinda doubt he's going to be the first in line to get his dress and high heels and wear them everywhere. :-) That is exactly the point. You wouldn't dress like a woman when you go to work. Your employer just wouldn't accept it. My point is that it perpetuates gender related prejudices and bias on a very subtle level. People can dress as they want in their private spaces (homes). In public spaces, some degree of conservative uni-dress-code will enable women to break glass ceilings. It also encourages comradeship and makes them feel that they are part of the 'family'. It's important to make that distinction between private spaces and public spaces, on this dress-code issue.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: --- s3raphita wrote: The line I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code was copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't advocate any dress codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. --- TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: Just in case you were wondering, I understood that, and so my rap this morning was a reply to Jason as much as it was Buck, who tried to springboard off of it with more of his gotta keep the sinners in line any way we can horseshit. I don't advocate any kind of dress code, but *especially* one that tries to make women or men look sexless. I, for one, would love to hear Jason defend that idea, and doubt that he could. I extended my rap to cover the uniforms worn by various religious groups and cults. Historically, such uniforms (special dress for priests, monks, or nuns, or even recommended dress for lay people) are about mind control more than anything else. The priesthood always needed something to *make themselves seem better or more special, and wearing certain robes that no one else was able to wear was one way to achieve that, and thus achieve the control they wanted to maintain over their flocks. Note that in most cults or religious orders, the robes/costumes worn by lower class monks are usually different and less ornate and special than those worn by people higher up in the hierarchy. (Think the ludicrous costumes worn by TMO Rajas) This is also about control. Making the monks and nuns wear costumes, period, is also an aspect of control freakdom, because the higher-ups want to remind them at all times that they are part of an org that is better and more powerful than they are, and to remind them of their vows, meaning their willingness to follow rules laid on them by other people. One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on this forum recommending uniforms for monks, nuns, and other members of religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying to justify rules they never followed. Similarly, when people like Jason mouth off about unisex clothing, I think you'll find that they're always talking about making the women look more like men. That was the point of me posting my photo of the guy from Rocky Horror wearing a corset, garter belt, stockings, and high heels. If ALL men and women dressed like that, that would be unisex. But I think we all know that's not exactly what Jason had in mind. I kinda doubt he's going to be the first in line to get his dress and high heels and wear them everywhere. :-) That is exactly the point. You wouldn't dress like a woman when you go to work. Your employer just wouldn't accept it. My point is that it perpetuates gender related prejudices and bias on a very subtle level. People can dress as they want in their private spaces (homes). In public spaces, some degree of conservative uni-dress-code will enable women to break glass ceilings. It also encourages comradeship and makes them feel that they are part of the 'family'. It's important to make that distinction between private spaces and public spaces, on this dress-code issue. Bullshit. And furthermore, bullshit written by a man who has no experience being a woman, and probably no experience breaking through ceilings in the workplace, glass or otherwise. I, on the other hand, have known a number of women who have not only disproved the glass ceiling myth, they have done so while retaining their individuality, their personalities, and their chosen mode of dress. For example, the woman who originally helped to get me my job at ILOG. I had known her before I moved to Paris, back in the Rama trip. From Day One, we managed to ignore many of the tensions and games that existed between the sexes in that org, and just got along. We continued to do so when I moved to Paris, and so when she suggested I interview at the company she worked for, I did. What she didn't tell me beforehand was that she not only worked at that company, she was the Vice President of Marketing for that company, so her recommendation carried some weight. But now let's look at your argument. She was pretty young (late 30s), attractive, way fit (she ran marathons and was an Olympic-level fencer), and dressed however she bloody well pleased. If she found herself in a room full of men, she was never the least bit intimidated by them, and more important, she never felt she had to emulate them in any way to be considered their equal . She was their equal because she *assumed* that she was their equal. As a result, that's how they treated her. She'd occasionally show up in nice, tailored business suits, and then the next day she'd show up in jeans and a T-shirt. At company parties she'd wear her fanciest gowns and get down
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Seraph, Yoga is essentially balance, ie life within parameters. Tolstoy gave the right advice. The prostitution industry is dangerous because it is one-sided and has nothing to do with egalitarian sexuality. There is something called 'financial-economic differential'. Wherever such a differential exists, there is always the possibility of exploitation and abuse of rights. Nature hates imbalances. Nature always tries to reach an equilibrium. Any society that is imbalanced will eventually destroy itself. The Yin-Yang balance is dharmic. Strictly speaking only egalitarian sexuality is dharmic. All other sexuality are adharmic or against dharma. An asymmetric dress-code is bad because it is one-sided and has nothing to do with egalitarian sexuality. It promotes prejudice and bias on a very subtle level. I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code. --- s3raphita@... wrote: Tolstoy could well be the greatest writer in world literature. Bearing in mind I've only read him in English translation, his novels and stories are perfection. But - and it's a very big but indeed - he suffered from old-man syndrome. When he was a young nobleman the serfs on his estates brought their young daughters to him to be enjoyed by Tolstoy as a part of his privileges. When he went on to become a student and young man-about-town he frequented prostitutes and had many mistresses. The trouble is that when he hit late middle age (and declining potency) he had a change of heart and decided that sex was the root of all evil and railed against the permissive society he lived in (and Russian society in his day was very decadent indeed). He then penned a lot of puritanical stories and Christian propaganda taking aim at the pleasures of the flesh. I really hate that. Leave the young to enjoy their pleasures and make their own mistakes say I.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: An asymmetric dress-code is bad because it is one-sided and has nothing to do with egalitarian sexuality. It promotes prejudice and bias on a very subtle level. I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code. Jason, I think you still must be having trouble posting graphics to FFL. This arrived in my email just now, labeled jedi_spock's idea of a uni-sex dress-code. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Something like this might be better? --- Jason wrote: An asymmetric dress-code is bad because it is one-sided and has nothing to do with egalitarian sexuality. It promotes prejudice and bias on a very subtle level. I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code. --- TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: Jason, I think you still must be having trouble posting graphics to FFL. This arrived in my email just now, labeled jedi_spock's idea of a uni-sex dress-code. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. Well, if you want to brag about something (being serious) that many people would perceive as a weakness or a failing, that's your business. Seriousness is not a virtue. - G.K. Chesterton
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: No brag just fact. I'm pointing out that the fact you're so proud of is something that most people worth knowing got over a long time ago -- being deadly serious about something as silly as religion. Just to offer a contrast, Buck, my father was raised in a Quaker household, too. But he lived his entire life without ever saying a word about it to any of his kids. It wasn't that it didn't mean anything to him. Quite the contrary. It meant enough to him that he kept it to himself and never talked about what he thought or what he believed to anyone else. What they believed was their business, and what he believed was his business. Now *that* is doing Quakerism justice. Trying to sound more holy or more evolved or more *anything* because of some shit you do that you call religion? That's just posturing and ego-masturbation and embarrassing. Being deadly serious about it? Even more embarrassing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. Well, if you want to brag about something (being serious) that many people would perceive as a weakness or a failing, that's your business. Seriousness is not a virtue. - G.K. Chesterton
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
Just to offer a contrast, Buck, my father was raised in a Quaker household, too. But he lived his entire life without ever saying a word about it to any of his kids. It wasn't that it didn't mean anything to him. Quite the contrary. It meant enough to him that he kept it to himself and never talked about what he thought or what he believed to anyone else. What they believed was their business, and what he believed was his business. Now *that* is doing Quakerism justice. Anyone is a quaker if they call themselves a quaker. But, if you don't call yourself a quaker then you're probably not a Quaker. Being a Quaker isn't about keeping secrets from your family. There are no hidden or closet Quakers - there is no esoteric meaning to being a Quaker. So, it sounds like your father might have been a Mason - I don't know. There are a lot of secrets with the Masons. One of the rules of Mason is to never talk about being a Mason. They admit to being Masons, but they never talk about the Masonry. They keep all the masonic secrets to themselves. Go figure. Local Masonry in San Antonio [image: Inline image 1] On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 7:36 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: No brag just fact. *I'm pointing out that the fact you're so proud of is something that most people worth knowing got over a long time ago -- being deadly serious about something as silly as religion. Just to offer a contrast, Buck, my father was raised in a Quaker household, too. But he lived his entire life without ever saying a word about it to any of his kids. It wasn't that it didn't mean anything to him. Quite the contrary. It meant enough to him that he kept it to himself and never talked about what he thought or what he believed to anyone else. What they believed was their business, and what he believed was his business. Now *that* is doing Quakerism justice. Trying to sound more holy or more evolved or more *anything* because of some shit you do that you call religion? That's just posturing and ego-masturbation and embarrassing. Being deadly serious about it? Even more embarrassing. * ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. Well, if you want to brag about something (being serious) that many people would perceive as a weakness or a failing, that's your business. Seriousness is not a virtue. - G.K. Chesterton
