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
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 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.
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, 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@..." 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
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" 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
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" 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
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" 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
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 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.
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, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@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, 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@..." 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
---In FairfieldLife@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, 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@..." 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 1/13/2014 12:04 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *You responded to Ann and me /before/ Barry instructed you to ignore us. If you intend to ignore that instruction and continue to make your own decisions about what to respond to, that's good, I approve.* > Maybe we should add this admonition to the list of internet protocols. 1. Always check with Judy before you post to Barry, for her approval. 2. Make your own decisions about what to respond to, unless it's Barry. 3. Don't respond to Ann or Judy, just ignore them and respond to Barry.
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
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 6:17 AM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote: > Sincerely, Doctor Dumbass, style consultant, and inveterate loudmouth So, you informants ARE interested in what people wear. LoL!!!
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" 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, 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@..." 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
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, 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@..." 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
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy, your admonition doesn't make any sense. I've already replied to both you and Ann! Yes and thank you. I really didn't have a clue what bibs were other than what babies wear and the image of someone in an ankle length bib with hair to her ankles (was that too many ankles?) seemed to good to be missed. I was asking you this in all seriousness! (That Bawwy just likes to try and stir up trouble between the women.) And your description of your drive home from the movie reminded me of many miles and hours I spent on the Iowa roads looking at those long horizons. It's been a long time since I saw them. On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:43 AM, "authfriend@..." 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
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. I agree. On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26 AM, "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
You have a ton of great old TM stories - thanks for posting that one Barry. On Mon, 1/13/14, TurquoiseB 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. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn't take itself deadly seriously
My admonition made perfect sense. You responded to Ann and me before Barry instructed you to ignore us. If you intend to ignore that instruction and continue to make your own decisions about what to respond to, that's good, I approve. << 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, "authfriend@..." 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
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" 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
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 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, 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" 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
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
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 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
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" wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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@..." 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
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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@..." 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
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" 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
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" 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
> 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 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 > > > > >
