Ex-Premie.Org

Forum I Archive # 2

From: May 3, 1997

To: May 7, 1997

Page: 4 Of: 5


Scott -:- The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:24:16 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:38:08 (EDT)
___Scott -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:45:40 (EDT)
___Scott -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:52:33 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 01:13:24 (EDT)
___Scott -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 01:44:43 (EDT)
___Anon -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 15:29:44 (EDT)
___Chris -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 15:30:20 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:29:18 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:33:25 (EDT)
___Anon -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 19:07:37 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:38:30 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:41:39 (EDT)
___Scott, au contraire.. -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 11:35:36 (EDT)
___Scott -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 12:38:08 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 13:31:23 (EDT)
___JW -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 13:53:27 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 15:38:12 (EDT)
___Scott -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 18:30:34 (EDT)
___Anon -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 18:35:14 (EDT)
___Scott -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 18:46:25 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 19:27:06 (EDT)
___JW -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 19:30:17 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 19:42:23 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 19:55:17 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 20:25:19 (EDT)
___Anon -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 20:35:44 (EDT)
___Anon -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 20:56:32 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 20:58:52 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:03:47 (EDT)
___Anon -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:15:53 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:18:51 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:37:34 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:41:48 (EDT)
___Anon -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:42:48 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:44:47 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:51:35 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 22:08:20 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 22:32:29 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 22:38:15 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 22:57:53 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:00:48 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:09:18 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:18:57 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:33:39 (EDT)
___trickster -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:35:48 (EDT)
___Deena -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:39:24 (EDT)
___trickster -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:47:48 (EDT)
___Scott -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 01:46:54 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 08:20:51 (EDT)
___Scott -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 08:43:43 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 08:45:23 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:01:00 (EDT)
___Scott -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:18:42 (EDT)
___Scott PS -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:21:57 (EDT)
___jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:36:56 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:41:01 (EDT)
___Bobby -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:52:42 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 10:24:37 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 10:26:51 (EDT)
___Anon -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 10:35:33 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 10:44:20 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 10:51:24 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 11:12:10 (EDT)
___Anon -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 18:55:36 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 20:41:09 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 21:22:49 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Tues, May 6, 1997 at 21:39:01 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: The 'Ultimate Experience' -:- Wed, May 7, 1997 at 01:17:56 (EDT)

Jim -:- What's going on here?! -:- Sat, May 3, 1997 at 21:44:23 (EDT)
___Jim -:- Re: What's going on here?! -:- Sat, May 3, 1997 at 21:47:03 (EDT)
___op -:- Re: What's going on here?! -:- Sat, May 3, 1997 at 23:08:29 (EDT)
___Scott -:- Re: What's going on here?! -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:58:32 (EDT)
___trickster -:- Re: What's going on here?! -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:36:44 (EDT)
___trickster -:- Re: What's going on here?! -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:37:40 (EDT)


Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:24:16 (EDT)
Poster: Scott
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
The Ultimate Experience' Current Premies claim that their experiences' are proof enough of Maharaji's power. Scientists tell us that the only place a valid experience' can occur is in the lab. The Sikhs have had the experience' of creating the richest state in all of India by following their religious principals of honesty, integrity, and morality. The Sikh movement is also given credit for handing us the experience' of the assassination of Indhira Gandhi, as well as some of the bloodiest civil unrest India has known since the days of Indian independence. I have had the experience' of occasionally sensing the presence of forces' that I knew, beyond all doubt, were far greater than any of the forces that are governed by the laws of modern science. Oddly, when describing to a supposed scientist how I once observed the laws of science being undeniably broken, he seemed to convey to me an urgent need to change the subject as quickly as possible. According to a recent study by Lynne Levitan and Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D. approximately 20% of all Americans have experienced' at least one out-of-body experience in their lifetimes, yet few are willing to discuss these experiences' openly with their associates and friends. Perhaps they would justifiably ask, Of what value is such a discussion, when my bills still need to be paid?' Could we all be experience junkies'? Does not even the scientist, in his supposed scientific purity merely seek after what he believes to be the most reliable source of experience'? Psychologists tell us that all experiences' are valid, but only to the degree that we are able to correctly understand their true meaning. I believe that most of us, in our perceived need for a sense of security, go about our quests for truth backwards. First we construct a model of the universe which we believe to meet our needs. Next we spend the rest of our lives trying to fit the Universe into this box we have constructed. I must confess I am probably just as guilty as the next person in this. Is the supposed scientist equally as guilty of this backwards logic'? I say, yes', especially after witnessing the supposed laws of science being violated time and again in my life, meanwhile I watch on as scientists bury their heads in the sand when confronted with descriptions of these events. Is it possible to break out of our boxes' and concepts' as OP puts it and to somehow leave ourselves open to the possibility of having our minds blown' as we used to say? Is it still possible for us to somehow return to that place of innocence, without the need for a Father Figure'? After my experiences with Maharaji and one other cult, I am personally sick of Father Figures' in my life. Am I being unreasonable by hoping to replace my ideal of a Father Figure' in my life with a Brother Figure', (one who can appear in each person I meet)? I confess, Jim and Deena, this is the type of teaching one can easily pick up in belief systems such as my two personal favorites, Quakerism and ACIM, but this same teaching can just as easily be found in dozens of other spiritual disciplines. Is this merely another form of backwards logic'? Maybe so. Ahh, but then I come back to what may be the ultimate evasion, or perhaps even the ultimate vindication. It works', at least that's my experience'.

Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:38:08 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Scott, I wrote detailed response to this fine expression of confusion and both it and your post got lost for a while. What gives?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:45:40 (EDT)
Poster: Scott
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
What are you talking about?! I never posted this before.... Actually.... again I have to apologize today. I had this thing up for only about two minutes when I realized a factual error in it. When I quickly took it back down to correct the error, your message hadn't yet shown on it. I guess you must have been composing while I was editing and this caused the problem. From now on, I will have to 'proof' my messages before posting them. Again, I apologize.

Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:52:33 (EDT)
Poster: Scott
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Dear Jim, What, (if I dare ask), did you have to 'de-confuse' me? Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 01:13:24 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Well I don't have a lot of time now. You calmly DESTROYED my comments and now you want them back again. Is this an example of defying the laws of nature? Scott, I have to ask you for some examples -- and they better be good. After all, your attack against science, scientists AND those pesky laws of nature is pretty direct. So, fair is fair. Put up or shut up, right? What you call 'backward logic' isn't that at all. It's called 'induction' or generalizing and it's how we make the models you accuse us of trying to squeeze things into. You got a better way? As I see it, it's beautiful, necessary and the best process we've got. The modelling is just a natural consequence of life experience. Something that runs coutner to your cry for innocence -- one more reason why that cry's false and dangerous. We need experience to learn from and that means generalizing. The logic, as I understand it, only kicks in AFTER we've got our models (or 'concepts'). New-age infantilism misses all this. Gotta go.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 01:44:43 (EDT)
Poster: Scott
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Dear Jim, I hate to get into examples, but here goes... you asked for them.... 1. Violating the scientific laws of time: On numerous ocassions I have had clear visions of very specific events to come that would have been impossible to forecast through probablity, or to induce through subconscious 'self fulfilling prophesy' types of actions. These types of 'visions' used to be much more frequent several years ago than they are now. E.G. seeing exact architectural details of an ashram house that I was going to be sent to live in, and knowing I was going to be sent there, 2 months before anyone else had even the slightest clue that I was going to be sent anywhere. 2. Violating the scientific laws of space: Last Monday I was speaking with a friend of mine who is an astro-physicist. His father is a professor of history who prefers not to deal with the paranormal. Unfortuantely he seems to be plagued with a frequent experience of astral travels on certain nights. My friend explained to me how his father once described having encountered a second person in an out of body experience while asleep. In this encounter, he supposedly had a certain detailed conversation with this second 'astral' person. The next day, he met with this second person and verified all of the details of their mutual encounter and 'astral conversation' while awake! Jim, I hope you don't try to dismiss these types of 'experiences' as psychotic or some other such nonsense.

Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 15:29:44 (EDT)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: Scott and Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
The Ultimate Experience?

I have no problem with what Scott has written, or with Jim's viewpoint. Models, or 'paradigms' (as everybody now calls them) are all very well and useful. Inner experiences are also fine and dandy while you're having them. It's the way that we subsequently interpret them that often leads to the many and various models that proliferate.

Today we attempt to improve upon the models of the past (dare I say.. ie: astrology etc, and all religions, including the Radhasoami, Hindu, Bhakti Yoga, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim ones etc.) through the systematic study of the universe (Latin Scientia = knowledge) and by doing away with the 'fanciful interpretation factor', unashamedly addressing that which can be clearly externally studied and proven.

The claims of 'transpersonal' experiences, whether shared or singular, serve to pose questions about the nature of consciousness and point toward the possibility of an individual experiencing a state of 'ego-lessness' and a subjective experience of a more essential level of existence.The sum of evolved educated thought, the provision of facts and an impartial judgement serve to protect one from drawing simplistic and distracting conclusions from one's direct experiences of this territory.

Whatsmore, a well-informed and intelligent mind can better discriminate and escape the fate of being negatively re-educated by so-called spiritual movements.

I am an advocate for education and using the intellect. I also have had many 'transpersonal' experiences myself. I have experienced astral projection, (so called) NDE, Knowledge, darshan dreams, amazing coincidences, comforting feelings of faith, alter-realities , extraordinary marvellous and blissful feelings , extraordinary demonic and frightening experiences etc. etc.. They are less helpful now because they occurred in the past and were too fleeting to draw any substantial conclusions from. Objectively they give me some hope that my soul may have some future after death of the body , but they also may have been imaginary 'realities' and as such of no real use.

I have a book of 'Famous Last Words'. This is a vast collection of the last words of people throughout the ages of all extracts and persuasions. It is very compelling and revealing to browse. There runs the whole gamut of reactions to the Great Imminent Unknown; from proclamations of faith to railings against God and Man. One message emerges above all. We are all ignorant creatures in the face of infinity. Why should we assume that Maharaji and past men of great faith are any different ?

I think it is time that we relax and embrace our ignorance. By attempting to grasp the 'timeless moment ' with our minds we fail... so why bother. We are all going to end up wherever we ultimately do in the end, despite our various theories. Kabir, Christ, Maharaji etc. (and I too come to think of it) have waxed poetical on many occasions and impressed others with amorous pop songs of devotion. This is the way we sell our religion. The 'Commercials speak very highly of it'. Oh do they? How extraordinary! Unfortunately the sway of religion seems to be as great as ever in today's world.

I only hope that the evolved commonsense of mankind ( and the spread of it through education) will gradually expose the 'placebo' prescriptions of the many 'Quack' high-priests and Masters, and that mankind's appreciation of Life will rest on more solid foundations. If Maharaji thinks that he can create a sub-culture of 'enlightened' people in isolation from the scrutiny and criticism of responsible peoples and societies worldwide, then he is wrong. Good questions will be asked.

The majority of the populace of the under-developed nations of the world are, however, still deprived of the luxurious opportunity of indulging in informed philosophy. They still puff away at the opiate religions of their upbringing. They are much more easily impressed with the likes of Maharaji and modern ' Krishnas' whose 'reformed yet radical' hinduism is exactly to their taste. In India for example there is apparently a trend of nostalgia for the 'Princely States' of the past. Maharaji's blend of 'benign autocracy' or 'regal spirituality' is most palatable. Remember, Indian Gurus of the past have impressed Indian government leaders and officials not so much by the efficacy of their teachings, but by the beneficial social reforms they undertook.

In the future the usefulness of Gurus as effective social leaders may diminish as world societies tackle their problems with more realistic and enduring solutions. (Nelson Mandela, and ArchBishop Tutu, however, come to mind as examples of genuinely humble men whose selfless spiritual honesty actually enhances their political effectiveness. )

It follows in my mind, that old religions and particular New Age-isms, Pantheistic movements etc. could be gradually exposed as being socially destructive, to the healthy evolution of man. They may well grow to be seen as ineffective, divisive, outdated and based on the premature wishful imaginings and assumptions of over-eager, misguided zealots.

A healthier respect for each other and our Universe will undoubtedly be engendered by the marvellous revelations of Science and the overwhelming natural evidence that we are indeed ignorant , vulnerable yet wonderfully complex sentient beings. Valid transpersonal experiences should not be assumed to be the sole privilege of the secretly instructed acolytes of particular sects, cults or movements. There may well come a time that there exists a general, open and honest acceptance and knowledge of these phenomena and their practice. Then there would be no secrets and no individuals whose ill-gotten powers jeopardise a society governed by the sum of it's members. Education inevitably and increasingly will include an historic evaluation of the destructive powers and effects of religious megalomaniacs to forewarn or remind students of the corruptive dangers of investing one man with too much power.

Valued human qualities such as kindness, love, intelligence, integrity, respectfulness, tolerance, moderation etc. come naturally with the acquisition of real knowledge. To describe the dwindling, social, moral and intellectual sensibilities of premies, as ' Knowledge', is a gross misnomer. One that serves only to distract from what is really being promoted. Devotion to the Master is to become your singular and consuming goal (along with the hint that you might benefit from participating in the pretentious display of immoderate and fawning gratitude.) The inner tranquillity that you may or not feel has tangible strings attached.

To claim that it is the Ultimate experience is a glamourous promotion. In fact it is a rather desperate advertising measure. If the product is so good it will sell itself whatever you call it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 15:30:20 (EDT)
Poster: Chris
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Have you ever read 'Think and Grow Rich' by Napolean Hill? He has some curious ideas on how imagination and mental focus can produce results that seem impossible. He interviewed people like Luther Burbank and Thomas Edison during his studies to procude his conclusions. He was funded in the effort by Andrew Carngie (Carnegie Hall) and was an advisor to 3 US presidents.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:29:18 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
I don't know what to make of either. They stay in the big mystery grab bag. But Scott, these experiences -- or whatever 'psychotic or other such nonsense' they are [... :) ..] are tales from OUTSIDE the world as we know it. They're not direct attacks on the laws of nature. Big diff.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:33:25 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Well said. By the way, how come my screen's grey now?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 19:07:37 (EDT)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Well said. By the way, how come my screen's grey now? Time to splash out on a sensible computer Jim.. Get a Mac.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:38:30 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
You mischaracterize science and, as far as I know, most scientists. You're also confused on the meaning of 'logic'. I don't like that shirt you're wearing either. No, seriously Scott -- I'll go through this bit by bit. The Sikhs? What's your point? I don't get it if there is one. Your scientist friend? Who knows? You haven't given enough info to hang anything on, let alone the future of the species. Scientists often can't complete a discussion very satisfactorily. You tell a scientist that you've observed something that breaks the laws of nature as we know them and he wants to change the subject. What did you expect him to do? Speculate with you about all the ways you might have been deluded? Is that what you were looking for? Or, instead, would you have him assume you saw right and speculate up from that? This is pointless. What was it you think you saw anyways? The majority of Americans believe in Jesus Christ. What does that tell you? Your description of how we form and test our models is unfair. What do you expect us to do? We experience, generalize (form models) and then 'try to 'fit the Universe into our box' (test the models). You got a better way to understand the world? There's certainly nothing 'backward' about this process. In any event it's not 'backward logic'. It's just the hit and miss of hypothesizing and experimentation. So what are these 'supposed laws of nature' that can't keep up their pretense for you? You make it sound like you're in a forest of walking trees. Every time you close your eyes the trees come a little closer. Shh! What's that?! I could swear I heard something! And who are these cowardly scientists you keep running into? Scott, you think ACIM is harmless but I see its track marks all up your arm. Let's talk about 'innocence' for a sec. What is it really? Oxford offers: 1) free from moral wrong, sinless; 2) not guilty; 3) free from responsibility for an event yet suffering its consequences; 4) simple, guileless, naive; 5) pretending to be 4 Which one are you thinking of? It can't be number one. Not if we think there's such a thing as 'right and wrong'. Every time we do something wrong we're out of the running and who hasn't made some mistake? 2 is the same. 3 is what you get when shit happens that you had no part in, but that only works for a while (knowledge and experience eventually erode that defense); 4 is idiocy and 5 is fake. No, we're no more innocent than we are 'pure'. Neither term applies to our lives in motion in this world of ours. We're part and parcel of it all. We're players. We do good, we do bad, we do do. But we're not babies. Babies are innocent -- they don't know nothing and they're not responsible. We grow out of that. Spiritualism, broadly speaking, and as so well explained in the Guru Papers, is an attempt to avoid the reality of our involvement in life. Fake innocence. Yes, Scott, you're enjoying the 'ultimate evasion.' It works? How? If you mean you can still think this way and not get arrested, and still keep your self-interest unhampered enough that you can do a little business, yeah, I guess it works. But if you're saying you understand the world better this way, I don't think so. For example, you agreed that ACIM might be nothing mroe than the 'chanellings' of the scribe's mind. If that's the case, and you knew it for a fact, would you treat it as anything but one woman's writings? No, of course not. That's what it would be. So, in order for this thing to 'work' you've got to turn the lights down on undestanding even the most basic property of the whole belief system -- what the fuck IS it? That's a very big compromise isn't it? You criticize the scientists for burying their heads inthe sand. Aren't you doing exactly that when you say ' I don't know if this thing's really at all what it claims to be, but I don't really care, I'm into it'?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:41:39 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
You mischaracterize science and, as far as I know, most scientists. You're also confused on the meaning of 'logic'. I don't like that shirt you're wearing either. No, seriously Scott -- I'll go through this bit by bit. The Sikhs? What's your point? I don't get it if there is one. Your scientist friend? Who knows? You haven't given enough info to hang anything on, let alone the future of the species. Scientists often can't complete a discussion very satisfactorily. You tell a scientist that you've observed something that breaks the laws of nature as we know them and he wants to change the subject. What did you expect him to do? Speculate with you about all the ways you might have been deluded? Is that what you were looking for? Or, instead, would you have him assume you saw right and speculate up from that? This is pointless. What was it you think you saw anyways? The majority of Americans believe in Jesus Christ. What does that tell you? Your description of how we form and test our models is unfair. What do you expect us to do? We experience, generalize (form models) and then 'try to 'fit the Universe into our box' (test the models). You got a better way to understand the world? There's certainly nothing 'backward' about this process. In any event it's not 'backward logic'. It's just the hit and miss of hypothesizing and experimentation. So what are these 'supposed laws of nature' that can't keep up their pretense for you? You make it sound like you're in a forest of walking trees. Every time you close your eyes the trees come a little closer. Shh! What's that?! I could swear I heard something! And who are these cowardly scientists you keep running into? Scott, you think ACIM is harmless but I see its track marks all up your arm. Let's talk about 'innocence' for a sec. What is it really? Oxford offers: 1) free from moral wrong, sinless; 2) not guilty; 3) free from responsibility for an event yet suffering its consequences; 4) simple, guileless, naive; 5) pretending to be 4 Which one are you thinking of? It can't be number one. Not if we think there's such a thing as 'right and wrong'. Every time we do something wrong we're out of the running and who hasn't made some mistake? 2 is the same. 3 is what you get when shit happens that you had no part in, but that only works for a while (knowledge and experience eventually erode that defense); 4 is idiocy and 5 is fake. No, we're no more innocent than we are 'pure'. Neither term applies to our lives in motion in this world of ours. We're part and parcel of it all. We're players. We do good, we do bad, we do do. But we're not babies. Babies are innocent -- they don't know nothing and they're not responsible. We grow out of that. Spiritualism, broadly speaking, and as so well explained in the Guru Papers, is an attempt to avoid the reality of our involvement in life. Fake innocence. Yes, Scott, you're enjoying the 'ultimate evasion.' It works? How? If you mean you can still think this way and not get arrested, and still keep your self-interest unhampered enough that you can do a little business, yeah, I guess it works. But if you're saying you understand the world better this way, I don't think so. For example, you agreed that ACIM might be nothing mroe than the 'chanellings' of the scribe's mind. If that's the case, and you knew it for a fact, would you treat it as anything but one woman's writings? No, of course not. That's what it would be. So, in order for this thing to 'work' you've got to turn the lights down on undestanding even the most basic property of the whole belief system -- what the fuck IS it? That's a very big compromise isn't it? You criticize the scientists for burying their heads inthe sand. Aren't you doing exactly that when you say ' I don't know if this thing's really at all what it claims to be, but I don't really care, I'm into it'?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 11:35:36 (EDT)
Poster: Scott, au contraire..
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
I don't know what to make of either. They stay in the big mystery grab bag. But Scott, these experiences -- or whatever 'psychotic or other such nonsense' they are [... :) ..] are tales from OUTSIDE the world as we know it. They're not direct attacks on the laws of nature. Big diff. Dear Jim, Again, you asked for this, so here it is: my explanation of why I believe that the existence of psychic phenomenon defy the laws of time and space.

Defying the laws of time: All modern science is based on a presumed acceptance of the laws of cause and effect. This assumption presumes that time is a sort of lineal thing, where earlier events necessarily are the causes of later events. Accordingly, true clairvoyance, or the ability to accurately predict the future well in advance would tend to defy this presumption. True clairvoyance would tend to indicate that time is in fact not a lineal thing but an illusory thing, that all things, past, present and future are in fact not separated from one another along a lineal time line, but are in fact somehow simultaneous. I don't believe that the possibility of the simultaneity of time is exactly a popular topic around most academic dinner tables these days.

Defying the laws of space: All modern science is based on an acceptance of the laws of matter, motion, and energy. The belief being that the universe is laid out in a sort of three dimensional grid system. Accordingly in order for any matter or energy to travel from any one location in the grid system to another location, it must first traverse the intervening spaces between the two locations. The possiblity of the existence of telepathy, whereby a form of energy is enabled to instantly traverse great distances without any apparent need to travel through the intervening spaces between the two parties would tend to indicate that space is in fact not a three dimensional thing but is also illusory. It seems to me that the existence of telepathy would tend to indicate that on some level, all things exist simultaneously in the same space. Yet another extremely unpopular theory in most scientific circles I am sure. Sincerely,
Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 12:38:08 (EDT)
Poster: Scott
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Dear Anon, This is what you get for writing me a three page response that I have to print out before I can even attempt to digest it. As well as for a posting a message that makes me initially sit and stare at the first page of blank lines for a few minutes, wondering why my computer isn't downloading properly, until I realize that that's just the way you wrote it! Another three page tome! Here goes....

I believe you are correct in your observation that the modern scientific method has tended to dispel and put to rest many of the fanciful myths that mankind has been victimized by for millions of years. Yesterday I was discussing one particular such myth with a former African missionary. Apparently, amongst the people in her missionary district in Nigeria, the birth of twins was considered to be an extremely evil omen. So much so that it was once the common practice, (and still may be), for villagers to immediately murder any twin babies that might be born, and also to permanently banish the evil' mother of any such babies from the tribe. The predecessors of my missionary friend had tried with some success to end this ridiculous and counter-productive practice. Yes Anon, on an external and practical level, the application of the Western principles of logic and reason certainly seem beneficial. Still, I believe that you seem a bit overly eager to me to dismiss the need to closely examine the realms of inner experience, a need which I believe modern science seems to shy away from. It appears to me that the highly subjective nature of these inner experiences tends to make them unsuitable candidates for easy scientific study. I believe you are also correct in your assessment that some more modern upshoots of older religious thinkings are in fact socially destructive. Even within the supposedly enlightened West, the instigators of the last two major wars used propaganda techniques that relied mainly on the exploitation of people's ancient religious prejudices in order to justify their wars. (WWII and the Bosnian/Serb war, the Bosnian/Serb war having its roots in the ancient Muslim-Christian antipathy). We too are not immune from some of the insanities that have come down to us via our ancient religious roots and heritage. Still, your choice of the words, opiate religions' immediately calls to my mind Marx's famous denouncement of all religion. His phrase, Religion is merely the opiate of the masses' at once seems to defrock all ancient religious beliefs as merely convenient mythological concoctions used by the ruling class to subjugate the masses. I believe that while religion has indeed been used for this purpose by some, to limit it to this would be equally superficial as those who Marx intended to denounce by this famous statement. I have no qualms, what so ever, with the employment of the modern scientific method in the meeting of the day to day necessities of life. The common use of the modern scientific method has yielded a wealth of benefits for mankind. Manufacturing and production techniques have been streamlined to degrees that would have been unimaginable only a century ago. Food production, transportation, communication, and data processing have all taken quantum leaps forward through the application of the modern scientific method. With the recent cloning of a sheep in Scotland, it would seem that the process of the conception of life itself will soon benefit from the application of the modern scientific method. What do I mean by the application of the modern scientific method'? The application of the principal that, any theory that can be reliably and predictably repeated, given a certain set of controlled laboratory conditions is in itself reliable'. This one very basic and very true principle has allowed scientists the world over to come to a greater agreement and harmony than ever before. This is an amazingly powerful principal, yet it has not been systematically discussed and practiced for more than a few hundred years. This profoundly simple principle was only first systematically discussed in the days of the renaissance by scientists like Francis Bacon. Prior to that time, the practice of science was rather more muddle headed in general. Before the renaissance, the doctrines of religion were the only science' that man knew of to fill in the vast gaps and voids that existed at the time in his body of knowledge. As we all know, the suppressions and censorships of the old church resulted in more than one martyr for the cause of truth and science during the days of religious turmoil of the renaissance. Millions more have also since been sacrificed who had no idea what they were truly dying for, in the name(s) of their religion(s). So, in light of the fact that religious speculations have often had seriously destructive components to them, and in light of the fact that modern science seems to hold out the potential of almost unlimited power, (within the realms of time and space), should we not then completely abandon all serious religious thought and speculation entirely? I reply with a resounding, Yes!', if what you are seeking is merely a more efficient society, and a more effective means of pursuing the apparent commonly accepted mutual goals modern society. But, I would reply with an even firmer , No!', if you believe that the mutual goals of modern society are possibly shallow and even self destructive. What are these mutual goals of modern society'? As best as I can determine, the perpetuation of the status quo, until it reaches its logical conclusion. What is the logical conclusion of the status quo? It would seem to me that this will eventually lead us to a world of extreme overpopulation, increased division between the haves and the have nots, perpetual armed conflict somewhere in the world, and ultimately the complete depletion of what ever natural resources still remain. These blessings of modern science' come to us as a result of the unchecked expansion of the human race that has been the direct result of recent scientific and technological advances of mankind. These things are the grand promises' that modern science now seems to me to be holding out to us. What do I mean by modern science? I believe that the dark side of the principle of the modern scientific method is the hidden assumption that any theory that cannot be verified under a given set of laboratory conditions is either irrelevant at best, or untrue at worst. By making this hidden assumption, modern science has seemed to take on a position of benign indifference towards any supposed mystical or religious experiences one might have. The modern scientist merely brushes off any claims he might hear of any such experiences as either irrelevant' at best or fraudulent at worst. I am in no way advocating a return to the unbridled religious speculations of the past. Anon, I agree with your statement that we ought to embrace our ignorance'. To me this would seem to imply that we ought to allow the deeper currents of our subconscious selves to speak to us and possibly guide us where modern science has failed. I believe that it is only by somehow tapping into what I am still convinced is our greatest resource, the subconscious reserves of our inner strength, that mankind will be enabled to extricate itself from the sure path to folly that I see it upon. I see this path of folly' as the path of unbridled materialism that the unquestioning dismissal of all things spiritual seems to lead to. I believe that it is yet possible to bridle' religious speculation and the discussion of mystical experiences through a process of shared introspection'. For example, when I describe the practice of the ritual murder of an infant, I think that it is relatively safe to say that this arouses a nearly universal revulsion in those who hear such a story. This revulsion is what I would call a shared introspection'. Modern science cannot prove that infanticide is either right or wrong, it can merely tell us what the probable results of such an act might be. Similarly, when I describe an act of great heroism, like the story of the Dutch boy who supposedly died with his finger plugging a hole in the dike, I think it's safe to say that this arouses a nearly universal feeling, of admiration. Again, modern science cannot tell us if this boy's act was good or bad, it can merely tell us what the probable outcome of this boy's act was. The nearly universal admiration we feel towards him is what I would call a shared introspection.' I believe that by returning more frequently to listen to the voice of inner wisdom' within, and by tempering our evaluations of whatever we believe this inner voice is telling us with the honest and open sharing and discussion of such things with others, always remaining open to the possibility that our understandings may have been mistaken, it is still possible to safely bridle' our more spiritual leanings. Otherwise we have no choice but to take the path of modern science and stifle and deny these inner leanings all together. Couldn't this age of modern science be tempered and balanced with a healthy respect for the realms beyond the grasp of modern science? (Modern science: The body of knowledge that is limited by definition to only those things that can be understood through the application of the modern scientific method.) Hey, modern science is a great new toy for mankind, but mankind's next savior it ain't.

Sincerely,
Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 13:31:23 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
B+ You were getting a qualified B, possibly even a B-, for triteness and repetition of the obvious on the first part. But when you began to talk about scientific method and its various pitfalls, you left the realm of standard scholarly drivel and had some original and expansive perspectives. I'm not sure if I agree with your conclusion, but overall it's a carefully prepared and well thought-out paper and you should do well on the final. [on a more human level, I didn't have time to check out the finer points - why o why do people have to post such LONG dissertations here? especially when I'm running toward deadlines...?]
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 13:53:27 (EDT)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Given the history or religion and man, I'm not so sure that increased knowledge makes frauds like Maharaj Ji less attractive. Science and learning often create their own backlash and fear. Fundamentalism, for example, both in the muslim world and in the christian U.S. is, in my opinion, primarily a fear of and a fight against the modern world, which inevitively brings information through education and science counter to long-held beliefs. In a way, in the 70s GMJ's attraction to the youth of the West partly resulted from seeds being sown on a generation disillusioned from what the modern world had become, with war, racism, sexism and materialism. GMJ's world promised detachment from the material world and a new set of values based on internal, as opposed to external, experiences. He also offered the Ross Perot syndrome -- a father figure who would take your life and solve all your problems. If anything, I think people are even more susceptible to such a figure and such promises of internal joy and peace, but the packaging would have to change, because the guru/perfect master phenomena has been so throughly discredited in the west. That may be what Guru Maharaj Ji is now trying to do.
But I don't think Maharaj Ji is that smart or philosophical. I think he is entirely driven by the material world he wants to enjoy and by the feeling of value that being a spiritual teacher gives him. It likely has finally dawned on him that Mishler was right and that he could not continue the pretense that he was an all-powerful, all-knowing, god-like perfect master. He was going to be laughed off the stage and lose even the devotees that were still with him in the early 80s. If he was going to salvage the good thing he had going he had to change. Too hell with people like me, anon, Jim and others who were involved in the ashram/initiator experiment (as Mili puts it) which he tried for awhile until it became clear he wouldn't be able to pull it off. He didn't give a shit how people like us might have gotten chewed up in the process. He doesn't even feel the need to address that issue, and hasn't to my knowledge.
To pull off the change he also had to try to limit the premies from going on talking about him in the fashion they had been (that he was god/all-knowing, etc.) and hence satsang was banned. He also had to end the ashrams and all the hindu trappings like darshan, crowns, thrones, etc. But he apparently has not given up his lavish lifestyle, with planes, cars, residences and $5000 suits. Those things he was not willing to give up. I think he would also rather that people like us would just shut up, like Mili suggests, and go on with our lives like his experiment never happened. But geez, that would hardly be fair, now would it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 15:38:12 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Scott, au contraire..
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
I think I might be coming down with something. Perhaps what Chris has is catching. But I have these unstoppable visions of butterflies dancing around, fairies dancing around, wild children in rainbow rags dancing around, and in the middle there's a bunch of stodgy middle aged philosophers, arguing about the linear dimensions of the sun's rays, the intensity per cubic mililiter, the quantification of the spectroscopic hues. And one of the philosophers can't keep his mind on the task at hand. He wants to go dance with the children. He knows he shouldn't, he knows there is Important Grownup Work to be done. But his mind just isn't on it. Oh, the sun is shining and there is joy and love and all those wonderful things. You'll hate me forever after this, but the chains belong to the one who's tied down. The key is right there, next to the chains - nobody's telling you who or how or why you have to dance with - but can't you just let the wind lift you, let the universe breathe you - find the wings you folded up and tried so hard to hide? There's LIFE in this universe. And that's the secret. THAT'S the mystery. With it come all those fancy things science can't put a handle on. With it comes good tasting food and dreaming consecutive dreams with your beloved, and sexual fantasies, and colors that enliven and colors that deaden and all the myriad emotions. Science tries, and science succeeds - up to a point. We all know that Einstein finally gave up and said there's got to be a powerful intelligence behind this all. Back to the LIFE post. What do you guys really really want? Each and every one? Do you want retribution and revenge and someone to kowtow to you for the rest of your lives? Do you want to spring out of the shell the years have created? Do you want to dance with eternity? You can, you know. Eternity doesn't have a name.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 18:30:34 (EDT)
Poster: Scott
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
B+!! Hey! What are you doing OP sneaking into the professor's chair, tampering with his records there? But OP, you're starting to evade here. Please focus on content, sorry if it seems buried under too much mumbo jumbo to you, I tried to express those ideas about the shortcomings of the modern scientific method in the simplist way I knew how. If you might have any simpler methods, please feel free. Meanwhile, do you agree or disagree? Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 18:35:14 (EDT)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: Scott,JW,OP
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
This post is intended to be a reply and comment on the words of Scott, JW and OP as expressed previously in this thread. I am making a huge effort to be as brief as poss. seeing as OP is so busy.

Scott wrote:
Still, I believe that you seem a bit overly eager to me to dismiss the need to closely examine the realms of inner experience, a need which I believe modern science seems to shy away from. It appears to me that the highly subjective nature of these inner experiences tends to make them unsuitable candidates for easy scientific study.-

I am indeed wary of analysing my inner experiences. I am certainly more interested in having them than thinking later about what they might or might not be. The fact that they are highly subjective experiences makes any sort of study difficult. 'Scientific' or otherwise. doesn't it?

Scott wrote:
I agree with your statement that we ought to embrace our ignorance'. To me this would seem to imply that we ought to allow the deeper currents of our subconscious selves to speak to us and possibly guide us where modern science has failed. -

Embracing my ignorance means, to me , exercising humility and enjoying the fruits thereof! Admitting that I do not know The Ultimate experience and not wasting my time pretending that I do.

JW wrote:
I'm not so sure that increased knowledge makes frauds like Maharaj Ji less attractive. Science and learning often create their own backlash and fear. Fundamentalism, for example, both in the muslim world and in the christian U.S. is, in my opinion, primarily a fear of and a fight against the modern world, which inevitively brings information through education and science counter to long-held beliefs. -

You are quite right. There is a fundamentalist backlash .The increased knowledge that comes with Science and learning does not immediately satisfy Mans sense of needing to belong and have a clear cut (albeit simplistic) model of the Universe to adhere to. But it is only a backlash and as such may be relatively shortlived. Most fundamentalists ultimately embrace the benefits in lifestyle that come with the Materialism they revile.

OP wrote:
I have these unstoppable visions of butterflies dancing around, fairies dancing around, wild children in rainbow rags dancing around, and in the middle there's a bunch of stodgy middle aged philosophers, arguing about the linear dimensions of the sun's rays, the intensity per cubic mililiter, the quantification of the spectroscopic hues. And one of the philosophers can't keep his mind on the task at hand. He wants to go dance with the children. -

That s me! As I write my little girl keeps pulling at me to come and play with her in the garden! Do you remember the Krishna Lila dancers. They epitomised your hippy vision of heaven. I hung out with them in Daytona Beach in 1975 and I was a rainbow child too! Believe me I would have loved to have retained my youthful innocence. My experience was however that I was eventually hurt (abused) by the dear old Pied Piper (don't we just love him?) to whose tune we all skipped.

OP wrote:
but can't you just let the wind lift you, let the universe breathe you - find the wings you folded up and tried so hard to hide?

Yes. But I seriously doubt whether this involves Maharaji in any way.

OP wrote:
There's LIFE in this universe. And that's the secret. THAT'S the mystery. With it come all those fancy things science can't put a handle on. With it comes good tasting food and dreaming consecutive dreams with your beloved, and sexual fantasies, and colors that enliven and colors that deaden and all the myriad emotions.

Look. I re-read my own post and Scotts reply etc. and I suppose I do sound a bit like a middle aged philosopher or a scientist . Actually these are just aspects of me. In real life I spend more time expressing my myriad emotions through art and music and having rampant sex. (to make up for lost time!) I have spent most of my life floating around in a blissfull childish dream. I now want to benefit from my experience and become an integral and contented human being . I am trying to find my balance.
OP wrote:
What do you guys really really want? Each and every one? Do you want retribution and revenge and someone to kowtow to you for the rest of your lives? Do you want to spring out of the shell the years have created? Do you want to dance with eternity? You can, you know. Eternity doesn't have a name.

So you want to know what I really want do you ?? DO YOU? OK THEN WISEGAL... IF YOU'RE SO INTERESTED GO AND READ MY PRAYER IN THE JOURNEYS SECTION - OFF YOU GO ! - HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TROT IT OUT EH??? .....I want to live with integrity. I want to demystify Life as much as I can. THAT MEANS NOT BEING WISHY-WASHY and to see clearer , and yes I want to know the WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT MAHARAJI!! GOOD ENOUGH.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 18:46:25 (EDT)
Poster: Scott
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Dear OP, Your analogy might be more accurate than you realize. The way I see it, current premies are very much like children, and their regression to that carefree time does indeed allow for some 'dancing'. I too wish that I could 'regress' to that state, yet I believe that the security found in childhood is a false security. I believe that the only truly reliable guide that we all must one day find is strictly within, yet encompasses all. (Sorry Jim, I can hear you grumbling already!) You are also right that eternity doesn't have a name, and I do want to dance with it. Yet if you truly believed this, why do you seem to turn around and place Eternity in a small box with the label Maharaji on it?

Sincerely,
Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 19:27:06 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott, au contraire..
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
You forgot the 'possibility of immortality' which, I'm sure, would trigger quite a re-write of something or other. No, Scott, I have to ask you -- WHAT clairvoyance? WHAT telepathy? I don't beleive in either. Look, we KNOW that people have fooled people for years in a million ways. Lots of evidence. We don't have any such evidence that your two fantastic phenomena actually exist. Or do we? Ever heard of James Randi's challenge? He's offered $10k -- or is it more? -- for years to anyone who could prove a scintilla of psychic anything. So far, no takers. Hmmm. These theories are unpopular because they haven't earned more respect. BUT, and this is the important thing, that's not even the issue. Scientists have had to wrap their minds around astounding findings often enough. Look at cold fusion. As far as I'm concerned, science is the one forum where you have a chance of even getting an audience for your surprising ideas. Sure, it might not be the New England Journal of Medicine or Nature, but if you've got something real you'll find an audience. (Sorry, I'm slow on big conspiracy theories. Please, don't even try me).
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 19:30:17 (EDT)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Re the backlash of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism doesn't just attack materialism, in fact, I would argue that christian fundamentalism has a strong basis in materialism, in the form of capitalism, while at the same time it argues against evolution, despite overwhelming scientific proof to the contrary. It turns in on itself and preaches to the converted and to those disillusioned individuals looking for simple answers. That's also what a cult does and that is what Maharaj Ji did/does.
What I'm saying is that the cycle might just continue, possibly in slightly different forms, with knowledge followed by religious reactionary furvor followed by more of the same. I guess I don't see man getting to a point where that is behind him. Nice thought, but I have seen no evidence that we are getting any closer to that point, and it's arguable that we are going in the opposite direction, making the ground possibly more fertile for scheisters like Maharaj Ji. By the way, I agree GMJ had something valuable to offer people, and that he revealed something valuable to me as well. It's what he did subsequently and what he did with the opportunity he had that is reprehensible.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 19:42:23 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Wrong! I think science is indeed our one great hope. After all, science only means 'knowledge'. Scott, your ACIM stuff has a sad, deleterious effect I feel obliged to point out. Normally, you strike me as a warm, compassionate and thoughtful person. Respectful of others, averse to hasty judgements, especially negative ones. That's noramlly. When it comes to defending your own sacred cows, however, you bare your teeth a little overmuch. I've never seen you so systematically and, in my opinion, unjustifably, prejudiced as when you speak about scientists. Really, Scott, the two-dimensional poindexter image is a littel outre. The next thing I know you'll be talking like OP who'se laughably limp broadside about all the nerdy scientists measuring the sunlight with their calipers oblivious to the charming elves dancing around them is -- laughable. Come on guys, give it up! You know, gynecologists can have good sex too. But, fuck that shit! Scott, your 'shared introspection' stuff just begs for some undestanding of evolutionary psychology. Read the Moral Animal for once and for all and you'll have an inkling as to why we have these universal impulses. Trust me.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 19:55:17 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Now look who's losing their patience with premie-gees? Anyways, Anon, you're biting the bait here prematurely. I read your post too and there's NOTHING there for you to apologize for. Nothing. You don't come off as anything but an adult trying to discuss an interesting subject. OP's successfully tricked you into feeling out of place wearing a tie but, Anon, you weren't at the beach! You were and are appropriately dressed and OP, sweet tie-dyed new-ager as she is, can go fuck herself! :)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 20:25:19 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
You are also right that eternity doesn't have a name, and I do want to dance with it. Yet if you truly believed this, why do you seem to turn around and place Eternity in a small box with the label Maharaji on it? Because when I peeked into the box it opened out to infinity.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 20:35:44 (EDT)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Because when I peeked into the box it opened out to infinity.

That's it I give up
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 20:56:32 (EDT)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Thanks Jim I think I'm coming to the end of my tour. Please will somebody shoot that old Nanny goat OP and put her out of her misery once and for all. I have failed. She's using chemical weapons I think... I don't know.. it's not warfare as I know it... I'm scared ..I have a wife and kids to think of.. You'll understand I know.. BE CAREFUL SHES GOT A BOX! It's not what you think..DONT TOUCH THE BOX! OK I'm outta here
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 20:58:52 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: all
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
okay. I'll put on more traditional garb for a while. Spring just overcame me - here I am, drudge, surrounded by papers - I have 16 projects going at the moment. All books by men and women who believe THEIR discipline is the answer. I never read the books I produce. Too depressing. Occasionally I'll read dissertations on literature, but they're all deconstructionists (whatever the hell THAT means), so there's not a scrap of inspiration there, either. I've got engineers, computer scientists, economists, historians, physicists, and literary critics at the moment. Sometimes I work on natural science books - those are a bit more fun. But what's keeping me going right now is Pictures at an Exhibition on the radio - not all the arguments these authors present for their version of reality. So if I want to wallow, I can wallow. My house burned down last year. I lost my mother before I had my first baby. My husband hasn't had a steady job in ten years. Some of my best friends have died recently. You don't want to hear all this, but the list could go on and on. Do I think I'm going to live forever? Is that why I can be so blase about the whole thing? No. I have the impending probability that I will develop cancer and die an early death like all the women in my maternal lineage. But my heart soars. Yes I know it sounds irresponsible and naive. Make hay while the sun shines. Gather your nuts for the winter. Grab the bull by the horns. But who is the dancer and what is the dance? Does it mean forgetting that I have to feed my children? That there are other children starving on the streets? That there are bills to be paid and clothes to be washed and the unfathomable work pile to tackle? Back to the argument. Do any of you have a bit of knowledge of nuclear physics? I don't. But nevertheless there is this bit of reality: There is more empty space than matter in the universe. Not just out there - between the planets. What are we made of? The infinitesimal atoms are made up of bits of energy each twirling in its own void. And to top it off, they won't even let us SEE them, these little creatures that make up the stuff of the universe. When an electron is unobserved, it behaves like matter. Solid. Occupies space. Leaves a track. But try to look at it, and it switches formats. Changes into an energy wave. Has no weight, no tracks. And out of these bits and pieces this entire universe has manifested? Stars and planets ad infinitum? Human beings occupying what appears to be one lonely corner of this vastness? If we can't even understand the nature of the building blocks, how can we expect to understand the rules that govern the universe? Sure, I agree that I enjoy pictures at an exhibition a little more than someone who has no knowledge of harmony. (It just ended). It's fun to pick out the instruments, to listen to their dialogue. But down to what level? Once I start studying the wavelength of the individual notes, trying to guess whether the violinist is male or female, whether the conductor had indigestion, whether the drums are goatskin or vinyl ... my enjoyment, the thing I was MEANT to get out of it, is gone. So I dance. Inside. This got too long. Sorry.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:03:47 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
That was virtually a straight line you handed me, Anon. You can't blame me for that. But it's true.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:15:53 (EDT)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
ME too MEtoo Me dance KILL ALL SCIENTISTS I'me on your side now I am . FUCK OFF JIM>>YOUR SATAN. HELP MAHARAJI! I SAW A SCIENTIST WITH GLASSES IT MUST HAVE BIN ONE-MAHARAJI YOUR BOGARTING THE CHIVAS REGAL MAN_ HEY OP>> lets dance -Its MUGGORSKI INNIT?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:18:51 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
It's not that it's too long it's just that it's not saying much. Sorry. 'If we can't even understand the nature of the building blocks, how can we expect to understand the rules that govern the universe?' Hey, far out! A new trick. Anyway, I agree. All the more reason for us to watch out for charlatans, wouldn't you say? We KNOW they exist. You yourself have called Maharaji a trickster. Why not simply call a spade a spade and admit that he tricked us? Oh, by the way, I LOVE it when newagers start talking quantum physics. And you think ivory tower deconstructionists sound funny.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:37:34 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: ANON
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
oooooppppssss! Sorry Anon, I lost track of my posts for a while. It was Scott who handed me the straight line. I hope you'll bear with me for just a few minutes before you split. Yes, I DID read your Journeys post. Yes I do feel for you. No I am not saying you have to rush back to Maharaji. You admit, over and over, that you DID have some kind of good experience with Knowledge. Why can't you take those few good memories and live with that? I did lose most of my possessions about a year an a half ago to a fire. It was quite a shock. About the only thing I still miss every once in a while are all the pictures we took as the kids were growing up. Something we can't replace. Am I going to live the rest of my life regretting the fire? Especially since it was my daughter's fault. Should I spend the rest of my life blaming her? We got over it. There are a few thousand people who just lost their entire past in floods. How many of them are going to spend the next few years, or the rest of their lives, pining for what's gone? I'm sure you have a wonderful life with family and friends now. Give yourself a chance - if you feel that what happened with Maharaji was all garbage, throw it away. Remember my house. All my beloved objects melted, scorched, waterlogged, covered in soot. I had to take each thing I had so lovingly cared for over the years and chuck it into a huge dumpster. We did our own cleanup - I,t gave me a sense of closure that I'm sure wouldn't have happened if we'd hire someone to do our dirty work. Among the burnt out belongings, I found a few treasures. They're all the more valuable now because I have so few. This might not be the right gesture - again, we don't know each other, I don't know what you hold sacred. But maybe you can do something like that. Take your bad memories, give them a final goodbye, and dump them. Don't worry about offending anyone - after all, these are ruined memories. Records that don't play. Mangled tapes. One more thing and then I'll leave you alone. A few years ago my son got into drugs. Heavily. He was 15. He's extremely bright - tested off the charts and all that when he was in grade school, and then he attempted to snort his brains away. I had such high aspirations for him! (as don't we all?) He went through rehab. At various group sessions I kept trying to convince him of the importance of education. He wasn't listening. After one session, one of the counselors came up to me and told me it was time for me to let go. Let go of what? Of my dreams that this budding genius of mine should at least fulfill his potential? I did't want to face that. She handed me a crumpled piece of paper. This is his education, she said. I held it in my hand. I crumpled it more. Now give it to your higher power (you know the terminology they use). I couldn't. I stood there for about a half an hour with the stupid ball of paper in my hand. But it did become something to me. I started to realize that more important than education was my son's sanity and health. Education is a byproduct, and if it comes, it comes. His life is number one at this moment. I threw away the paper. Consciously. I didn't even have to hand it over to a higher power. I just let go. Does any of this make sense to you?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:41:48 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
More heartfelt laughter! Anon, it's time for you to admit that there's great pleasure in ridiculing premies. Easy pickin' and table ready for the right palate. Farm-fed on a rich diet of Maharaji nonsense for years and years, they're incredibly soft. Every bite is a succulent morsel of sweet nothings with no core fibre to stick in your teeth.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:42:48 (EDT)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
All forgiven OP. I've found my new purpose in life.
In accordance with my new role as Scientist Extraordinaire I hereby invite all like-minded Scientists to a convention. Science is a much maligned domain of human knowledge and its practitioners have for too long been relegated to B-movies and remote ancestral estates.
The conference will provide an international forum for the presentation, discussion and extension of research into the darkly powerful sciences and dangerous technologies which fall beyond the scope of conventional good taste.
The purpose of the conference is to promote a general understanding of mad topics within the broader scientific community, to encourage new researchers to dabble with things best left alone, to attract commercial sponsors to the potential benefits of science in the business world, and to replace the old drooling maniac stereotype of the mad scientist with a new drooling maniac image which is more appropriate to the modern era.
The conference is hosted on the Web to avoid the overheads of unpredictable atmospheric conditions and revolting peasants.
48 candidate delegates are currently in attendance and available to discuss their papers in the Mad Science Masquerade.
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
Creating life to satisfy egocentric motives.
Unleashing entities beyond human control and comprehension.
Tampering with the life-sustaining forces of the Universe.
Exceeding the limitations of the human body via grotesque metamorphoses.
New applications for old technologies (alchemy, necromancy, etc.).
Ill-advised collaboration with alien and/or supernatural intelligences.
Life-long devotion to researching the pointless and inane. Callous disregard for human experimental subjects.
Exacting bizarre revenge on contemptuous and derisive peers.
So I'me fine now. (courtesy of the mad science homepage)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:44:47 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
That new trick tricked me. I thought I was copying and pasting and nothing showed up. Oh Maharaji!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 21:51:35 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Don't forget forgiveness.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 22:08:20 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Gee - I didn't know I was being ridiculed. I was pretty happy to see Anon laughing. I even took the all is forgiven as a true statement. I admit I know next to nothing of quantum physics. If you know more, why don't you teach me? I think the workings of the universe are pretty incredible. Sorry if my addlebrained nonsense is so far beneath your venerable facade. What's behind the facade, Jim? Daggers, scythes, hand grenades, instruments of torture? There are those whose hearts are made for kindness. They don't have any thorns or prickles. Are they the ones you seek out, Jim, so that you can chew to your heart's content? You've been trying hard. You finally got to me. I'll get over it, but you can gloat all you want right now. I hope you get some help.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 22:32:29 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
-OP said :There are those whose hearts are made for kindness. They don't have any thorns or prickles. To which I say, no there aren't. I've neve met one,in any event. And I particularly don't trust people who call me 'brother.' OP, why do you call Maharaji a 'trickster.'?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 22:38:15 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
OP says - Science tries, and science succeeds - up to a point. We all know that Einstein finally gave up and said there's got to be a powerful intelligence behind this all. To which I say, bullshit. Einstein did NOT give up on science. What the fuck are you talking about? OP also asks - What do you guys really really want? Each and every one? Do you want retribution and revenge and someone to kowtow to you for the rest of your lives? Do you want to spring out of the shell the years have created? Do you want to dance with eternity? I personally want retribtion and revenge.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 22:57:53 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
OP - thought experiment. Let's say someone took your advice and walked away from the shame and loss of having been defrauded by your fake little friend. That is, you persuade them that even if Maharaji's phony it just wouldn't be worth their while trying to fight him. What would your reasons be -- that he's too clever to admit anything? That it just isn't worth the trouble? Let's say your friend said 'Okay, already!' and just as he was about to leave, who should walk in but Maharaji! How would you feel?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:00:48 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
See! What'd I tell you! They're like mites. They get under your skin. Premiemites.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:09:18 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Basically, a lot to digest in one sitting. I sent you, by the way, the things I had saved from the lost archives. I'll have to do the same (that is, save - not send to you) with this entire thread and look it over when it's not taking up phone time. Maybe I'll print it out and read it in the bathtub. But are you sure you want my opinion? After all, Jim seems convinced that newagers aren't qualified to think. Not that I ever considered myself a newager. I don't have any crystals, and only one of my kids had her chart done - and that was a gift. Then, I DID dabble in Tarot and... oh, I'm losing focus again. Sorry. The thread does seem interesting, once I put on my college garb. Sorry if I sound a bit cynical - I really shouldn't prejudge before digesting. But I'm still reeling from Jim's latest jabs at me. Out of left field no less. I'm usually prepared, but these really smart.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:18:57 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
I agree - Einstein did not give up on science - damn it, when WILL I learn to say what I mean? - what I meant was 'he reached the conclusion that...' Yes, we all know YOU want retribution and revenge. Not necessarily truth. Not closure. Certainly not mutual respect and understanding.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:33:39 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
OP, why do you call Maharaji a 'trickster.' Sorry - again I'm using vocabulary that's not common. This time it seems I really have to eat my words. But I'll try to explain. The 'trickster' - in mythology, ancient folklore, etc. - a mischevious manifestation. A few famous tricksters: Krishna, Bre'r rabbit, Wiley Coyote, leprechauns. In Native American stories, tricksters are quite common. I didn't mean the dictionary sense of someone who defrauds. I thought the literary sense was more common that it apparently is. In literature, they're usually responsible for all the mischief you can't quite ascribe blame to. Check out a few of the posts here.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:35:48 (EDT)
Poster: trickster
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
That new trick tricked me. I thought I was copying and pasting and nothing showed up. Oh Maharaji! see?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:39:24 (EDT)
Poster: Deena
Email:
To: Anon and Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Hey you guys, now you know why I just don't bother eh? But I must admit I had some VERY BIG LAUGHS reading these last few posts of your's. Well done, I must say.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:47:48 (EDT)
Poster: trickster
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
What are you talking about?! I never posted this before.... Actually.... again I have to apologize today. I had this thing up for only about two minutes when I realized a factual error in it. When I quickly took it back down to correct the error, your message hadn't yet shown on it. I guess you must have been composing while I was editing and this caused the problem. From now on, I will have to 'proof' my messages before posting them. Again, I apologize.

Scott nope - not trickster this time - there's a logical explanation.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 01:46:54 (EDT)
Poster: Scott
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Dear Jim, True, the word 'science' was originally derived from a Latin word for, 'knowledge'. In recent centuries it seems to have taken on the slightly different meaning of 'only that knowledge which can be proven with the modern scientific method'. To me this seems to me to have a slightly narrower meaning than simply 'knowledge'. Wouldn't you agree? In addition to acting exactly like our friend Milli, who when confronted with clear evidence that sheds a negative light on M. believes it must be fraudulent, both you and Anon have completely sidestepped one very major question that I posed earlier on. Now that modern science has created a world population which is projected to clearly outstrip the planet's ability to feed it sometime in the next 50 years, now that modern science seems to have relieved mankind of the need for any sense of morality or purpose, whatsoever, where is this supposed Utopia that our new 'savior', modern science is supposed to soon 'reveal' to us?

Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 08:20:51 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Hold on honey. Those wern't menu items. Yes, I'll have some truth for sure. And closure (was that on the menu before? Maybe I overlooked it.) Mutual respect and understanding? With Maharaji? What? Maharaji and I? Mutual respect? HIM respecting ME? Understanding ME? Really? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! By the way -- what do you mean by Maharaji as Wiley Coyote or Br'er Rabbit? Those guys, for want of other words, were liars. Fictional liars. What ARE you saying about fearless leader? Mutual respect? Ha,ha,ha,ha!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 08:43:43 (EDT)
Poster: Scott
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Dear Jim, Thank you for so strongly recommending that I read The Moral Animal'. As you already know, my reading of the brief section you posted in the lost-archive' did not impress me very much. The author's belief', (not proof), that man is essentially a bundle of randomly joined cells with no more real experience of the emotion of, love', than a genetically pre-programmed preference towards the survival of the species. Accordingly, man is no more than this pathetic, deluded, fluke of nature with the temporary delusion that he is in fact actually capable of an honest emotion. There is no such thing as a truly honest emotion. In reality emotions are merely these nasty things that emanate from our heritage of chaos, masquerading as morals and altruism. If you could somehow prove to me that this theory is correct, perhaps I would buy in. But so far you have presented no solid proof, only wild theories. I admit that I cannot use the modern scientific method, (sorry, there's that phrase again), to prove my theory about the unity of all life either. At some point in your life, you must have felt that the circumstances of your life made you feel most comfortable with the model of the universe you have chosen to defend. I chose a different model, as you well know. I am totally mystified by your choice of this model' having no idea what value you place in it. Perhaps you are equally mystified by what appears to you as my stubborn clinging to the model' I have chosen. Meanwhile, I hope you are able to slim down a bit on your new diet of supposedly half baked premies. I recently became a vegetarian again myself.

Take care,
Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 08:45:23 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Can't answer your extremely loaded question. I don't accept your premies -- oops, I mean premise. By the way, Scott, have you read the Skeptical Inquirer's slag of ACIM? Do you want to argue about ACIM here or privately? I kind of feel like you've opened the door wide enough here with all your ACIM-inspired peculiar thoughts. On the other hand, like I said, it only interests me to the extent that it affects your aim in the Maharaji Truth Brigade. Well, it's fun to argue about this stuff in any event for sure. Don't get me wrong.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:01:00 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Scott, careful about painting yourself into a corner. This 'wild' theory you scoff at is bowling over the scientific world. Evolutionary psychology is here to stay, just like evolution itself is. Well, maybe we should start there. Maybe THAT's the problem. You DO accept evolution, don't you? (Oh God, Scott, you better not get all wierd on me here!)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:18:42 (EDT)
Poster: Scott
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Dear Jim, Yes, and I remember that 'And It Is Divine' was the world's fastest growing magazine too. Evolutionary psychology may have a solid core of adherents, may be in a current state of growth, but taking over the whole world, come on man?? Get real?! Why do I accept the theories of Darwin, while finding difficulty with the theories of evolutionary psychology? We hav ample physical proof of Darwin's theories. The only proof the evolutionary psychologists have is subjective, plain and simple. Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:21:57 (EDT)
Poster: Scott PS
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
PS: Personally I think that Darwin would be rolling over in his grave if he knew about the tom foolery the evolutionary psychologists are carrying on in his supposed name.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:36:56 (EDT)
Poster: jim
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Of course I should have said the 'psychological, anthropological world.' But anyways, it is. As for Darwinism simplicitur, a lot of fundamentalists wouldn't agree with you. Mind you, they're nuts. But thw point is, it's all the same and the kinds of proof are too.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:41:01 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Scott PS
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Scott, you're starting to sound foolish.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 09:52:42 (EDT)
Poster: Bobby
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Skeptical Inquirer folks have been implicated in cover-ups and distortions themselves. At least one editor of their periodical has had to step down. In fact, the history of science itself has been riddled with distortions and coverups. Don't let the mask of objectivity fool you. Many a scientist has altered his data to suit his pet theorem. Science is a useful tool, but by no means the total explanation. Rational thought cannot explain the ineffable.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 10:24:37 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Scott
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Dear Jim, Thank you for so strongly recommending that I read The Moral Animal'. As you already know, my reading of the brief section you posted in the lost-archive' did not impress me very much. The author's belief', (not proof), that man is essentially a bundle of randomly joined cells with no more real experience of the emotion of, love', than a genetically pre-programmed preference towards the survival of the species. Accordingly, man is no more than this pathetic, deluded, fluke of nature with the temporary delusion that he is in fact actually capable of an honest emotion. There is no such thing as a truly honest emotion. In reality emotions are merely these nasty things that emanate from our heritage of chaos, masquerading as morals and altruism. If you could somehow prove to me that this theory is correct, perhaps I would buy in. But so far you have presented no solid proof, only wild theories. I admit that I cannot use the modern scientific method, (sorry, there's that phrase again), to prove my theory about the unity of all life either. At some point in your life, you must have felt that the circumstances of your life made you feel most comfortable with the model of the universe you have chosen to defend. I chose a different model, as you well know. I am totally mystified by your choice of this model' having no idea what value you place in it. Perhaps you are equally mystified by what appears to you as my stubborn clinging to the model' I have chosen. Meanwhile, I hope you are able to slim down a bit on your new diet of supposedly half baked premies. I recently became a vegetarian again myself.

Take care,
Scott
Thanks again, Scott. (I seem to be eternally thanking you on this page) This time for giving me a glimpse into what makes Jim tick. The theory when I was growing up was that human beings are the only animals that HAVE no instincts (i.e. preprogramming). Odd how theories keep swinging back and forth in this muddle of the material. Sorry, Jim, I really don't have much respect for them that spend their lives trying to prove a theory they made up when they were kids. No matter how much hard work and scholarly study they put into it. (THIS IS A GENERAL STATEMENT - I'M NOT PICKING ON YOUR MORAL ANIMAL AUTHORS - sorry, I had to shout that, Jim, you always miss my disclaimers) At any rate - Scott? this was addressed to you - I think we do have some things in common that don't necessarily apply to the main subject of this page - aren't we all human beings with an aptitude for communcation and even understanding after all?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 10:26:51 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
the trickster at it again? My boldface came out just fine, but what are those EEEEEEEE's that showed up in my reprint of Scott's post?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 10:35:33 (EDT)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
the trickster at it again? My boldface came out just fine, but what are those EEEEEEEE's that showed up in my reprint of Scott's post?!! they must be mice I think! That really made me laugh anyway!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 10:44:20 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Great, the blind leading the blind! Oh well......
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 10:51:24 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Just one more example of patriarchal abuse, n'est-ce pas? OP, before we go any further down this road, what are your OWN standards for communication? Do you enjoy being inconsistent? Does it matter?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 11:12:10 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
the trickster at it again? My boldface came out just fine, but what are those EEEEEEEE's that showed up in my reprint of Scott's post? ! ! they must be mice I think! That really made me laugh anyway! Thanks - your answer really made me laugh. And yesterday - your 'convention' got me going, too. I thought I was laughing WITH you until Jim came in and suggested I was being conveyed to the grinding mill. Now, if we could only get Jim to laugh...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 18:55:36 (EDT)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
the trickster at it again? My boldface came out just fine, but what are those EEEEEEEE's that showed up in my reprint of Scott's post? ! ! they must be mice I think! That really made me laugh anyway! Thanks - your answer really made me laugh. And yesterday - your 'convention' got me going, too. I thought I was laughing WITH you until Jim came in and suggested I was being conveyed to the grinding mill. Now, if we could only get Jim to laugh... You were laughing with me my dear.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 20:41:09 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Just one more example of patriarchal abuse, n'est-ce pas?OP, before we go any further down this road, what are your OWN standards for communication? Do you enjoy being inconsistent? Does it matter? Back in high school I had a roommate with whom I had my first vaguely feminist discussions. One of the conclusions we came to was that there are differences in the way men and women discuss things. (no - not men are from mars etc.) No hard and fast rules, but it seemed to us that women tend to be more inclusive, expansive. Men tend to be more exclusive, introspective. Women jump from one topic to another and then weave them together. Men get down to the nitty gritty and concentrate on more and more detailed examination of the question at hand. I'm often accused of being to masculine in a lot of my behavioral patterns (e.g. I'm the one who will never ask for directions on the road - my husband LOVES to stop and ask for help). But maybe the above has something to do with my seeming flightiness. It's not that I'm trying to evade or avoid. It's that my mind jumps to observations that often seemingly have nothing to do with the subject at hand, but in my head, the insist on appearing and then often DO have relevance. I guess I have to learn to toss out those that are simply standing on the sidelines, waiting for me to find a role for them, huh?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 21:22:49 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Bobby
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Bobby - when you say 'Skeptical Inquirer folks have been implicated in cover-ups and distortions themselves. At least one editor of their periodical has had to step down.' can you back that up? I think you're wrong but what do I know? So? As for your attack on science in the form of the tired old argument that some scientists have been less than perfect, how stale. And stupid. Stupid argument, Bobby. STUPID! And not the least bit ineffable. If someone misreads or misrepresents a bathroom scale does that mean that scales aren't valid tools for determining weight? Sorry if I've hurt you again. Here, have a hanky.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 6, 1997 at 21:39:01 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
Yep. Look, men and women do indeed think differently. Of course they do. But that doesn't mean they aren't still acountable to the same standards. Honesty's honesty, right? Or are you going to fuck with that word too? I work with lots of women. If they even for one moment tried to use their gender as an excuse for evasion or muddleheadedness they'd be trounced upon. A deal's a deal and a contract's a contract. I've enver seen anyone successfully argue that they shouldn't have to abide by some provision because their lawyer who drafted the thing was a woman. When that reporter faked the kid junkie story in the Washington Post in the eighties no one cut her any more slack because she was a woman. So give up the bullshit, OP. Enough's enough. You say you're not trying to evade or avoid. When I drive down the street, I'm not trying to speed -- so I don't. If I do speed, and I don't want to (cuz sometimes I do), I try to CONTROL myself. Is that really so hard? If you're trying to talk straight, then just do it already. This ain't rocket science, OP. Little kids understand it. 'Did you take your sister's cookie, yes or no?' This ain't even quantum physics. By the way, Bobby, are you okay? OP, go see if Bobby's okay, alright?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 7, 1997 at 01:17:56 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The 'Ultimate Experience'
Message:
we're speaking two different languages, Jim. Do you have the patience to try to hear what I'm saying? I feel like I'm doing all the work here. Muddleheadedness and avoidance are not the point. Gender is not the point. I was noting a difference in the MANNER of communication. I even said, a while ago on this forum, that I might use some terminology and examples that would not be those other people will chose. That's not just my prerogative - EVERYBODY uses their own language. If you find me muddleheaded, then by all means, ignore my posts. Freedom of speech includes the ability to ignore, yes? But I forgot. I'm on your home turf here. So you can be as obtuse, as scatterbrained, as irrational as you please. I'm the guest, so I have to keep my hands clean and smile and politely answer the questions in the order in which they were received. Ooops! Did I say that out loud? How uncouth!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 3, 1997 at 21:44:23 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: What's going on here?!
Message:
Scott, unless I'm really losing it, I could swear you'd posted some thoughts under the name 'experience' and that I'd answered it. Now neither post is here. Am I losing it? Again?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 3, 1997 at 21:47:03 (EDT)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What's going on here?!
Message:
Oksy, now there's a bunch of little green things everywhere! Great... just what I needed, a bunch of green things.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 3, 1997 at 23:08:29 (EDT)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What's going on here?!
Message:
Appropriate thread title. Thought it might be a good place to let you know, Jim, that I had composed a rather long and very detailed reply to your e-mail - and my mac developed a bomb so I lost the whole letter. This also happened the other night, when I was about to mail you - the internet couldn't find your address, and when I tried to send it via AOL (from another computer even), you were unreachable. Then I deleted part of the letter and it went through fine. I guess there are some things I'm just not meant to communicate.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:58:32 (EDT)
Poster: Scott
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What's going on here?!
Message:
The green things are not my doing. Honest.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:36:44 (EDT)
Poster: trickster
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What's going on here?!
Message:
again?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 23:37:40 (EDT)
Poster: trickster
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What's going on here?!
Message:
Oksy, now there's a bunch of little green things everywhere! Great... just what I needed, a bunch of green things. and yet again?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index