Ex-Premie.Org

Forum III Archive # 29

From: Nov 14, 1998

To: Nov 27, 1998

Page: 1 Of: 5


nigel -:- Ignorance is Bliss? -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:40:03 (EST)
__nigel -:- which reminds me... -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:45:35 (EST)
__Mike -:- Ignorance is Bliss? -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 14:02:50 (EST)
____hamzen -:- Ignorance is Bliss? -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 22:30:18 (EST)
__nigel -:- More about JBS Haldane -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 16:56:37 (EST)

srb -:- JW, Jerry, and DNA JI -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 02:00:16 (EST)
__Jerry -:- JW, Jerry, and DNA JI -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 09:32:29 (EST)
____Sir David -:- JW, Jerry, and DNA JI -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 10:06:11 (EST)
______Jerry -:- JW, Jerry, and DNA JI -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 11:29:57 (EST)
______Saul -:- JW, Jerry, and DNA JI -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 12:28:24 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- JW, Jerry, and DNA JI -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 18:19:10 (EST)
______Jerry -:- Beneath contempt -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:35:28 (EST)
________nigel -:- I'm with Jerry, here -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 20:57:24 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- Beneath contempt -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 02:29:27 (EST)
__________Jerry -:- Beneath contempt -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 10:39:37 (EST)
____________Scott T. -:- Beneath contempt -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 11:56:57 (EST)
______________Sir D -:- Beneath contempt -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 12:22:15 (EST)
________________Scott T. -:- Beneath contempt -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 12:57:13 (EST)
________________Scott T. -:- About Hawking -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 13:05:42 (EST)
__________________Mike -:- About Hawking -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 13:52:23 (EST)
____________________Scott T. -:- About Hawking -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 20:06:14 (EST)
______________Jerry -:- Blame the scientists -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 13:41:03 (EST)
______hamzen -:- awareness/complexity -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 23:11:45 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- awareness/complexity -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 11:06:12 (EST)
__________Helen -:- awareness/complexity -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 16:46:28 (EST)
__________hamzen -:- awareness/complexity -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 19:42:31 (EST)
____________Jim -:- Ever heard of neuroscience? -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 22:41:04 (EST)
______________hamzen -:- Ever heard of neuroscience? -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 19:02:31 (EST)
________________Jim -:- You're right -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 22:03:51 (EST)
__________________hamzen -:- Maturana AND Varela (1) -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 08:19:52 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- Maturana AND Varela (1) -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 11:16:27 (EST)
__________________Jerry -:- In defense of Maturena -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 11:22:13 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- In defense of Maturena -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 18:32:07 (EST)
______________________Jerry -:- In defense of Maturana -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 20:00:29 (EST)
________________________Jim -:- Unsafe assumption -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 21:30:19 (EST)
________________________Jim -:- You decide -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 21:58:47 (EST)
__________________________Jim -:- Maturana's homepage -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 22:29:35 (EST)
____________________________gerry -:- Maturana's homepage -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 22:57:31 (EST)
__Jim -:- Bill, you are SO arrogant! -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:48:52 (EST)
____stark raving burke -:- St James, your forgetting!! -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 20:04:05 (EST)
______Jim -:- Deference -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 21:28:11 (EST)
__nigel -:- The Argument from Design -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 17:01:27 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- Nanasoft -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:18:34 (EST)
______Little Yiddish Grandma -:- OY , YOU GUYS -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:42:17 (EST)
________Jerry -:- Hey Granny -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:51:07 (EST)
__________Little Yiddish Grandma -:- Vat???? -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 20:02:18 (EST)
____________Jerry -:- Ok, Granny -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 21:24:39 (EST)
______________Little Yiddish Grandma -:- Ok, Granny -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 23:15:31 (EST)
________________Jerry -:- Ok, Granny -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 11:04:01 (EST)
__________________Little Yiddish Grandma -:- Ok, Granny -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 12:27:23 (EST)
____________________Jerry -:- Ok, Granny -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 14:01:12 (EST)
______________________Helen -:- Ok, Granny -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 16:50:20 (EST)
________________________Helen -:- Ok, Granny -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 16:52:06 (EST)
__________________________Jerry -:- I never would have guessed -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 17:22:06 (EST)
____________________________Helen -:- LYG still wants to... -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 23:15:06 (EST)
__Jim -:- Why the silence, Joe? -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 18:54:16 (EST)
____Sir D -:- Why the silence, Joe? -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 01:57:05 (EST)
____JW -:- Okay, Okay -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 13:09:48 (EST)
______JW -:- Gay Gene -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 14:16:06 (EST)
________Jerry -:- Gay Gene -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 17:34:03 (EST)
__________JW -:- Gay Gene -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 18:04:19 (EST)
____________hamzen -:- Gay Gene -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 08:43:08 (EST)
______________Jerry -:- Living systems? -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 11:48:56 (EST)
____________op -:- Gay Gene -:- Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 05:39:01 (EST)
__________hamzen -:- Gay Gene -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 19:20:04 (EST)
____________Jerry -:- Gay Gene -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 20:31:45 (EST)
________VP -:- Gay procreation -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 21:55:05 (EST)
__________JW -:- Gay procreation -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 01:33:49 (EST)
____________hamzen -:- Gay procreation -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 03:55:52 (EST)
______________JW -:- Natural Drift? -:- Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 13:55:09 (EST)

RT -:- A Live Video feed Dec 13 -:- Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 18:04:17 (EST)
__VP -:- A Live Video feed Dec 13 -:- Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 18:22:44 (EST)
__Selene -:- A Live Video feed Dec 13 -:- Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 19:18:15 (EST)
____Sir David -:- A Live Video feed Dec 13 -:- Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 19:55:00 (EST)
____Orlando -:- Selene... -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 09:35:37 (EST)
______david m -:- Stock Market -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 10:41:21 (EST)
______Selene -:- seats with no one in them -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 11:16:04 (EST)
________SHP & Dr. Seuss -:- seats with no one in them -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:05:01 (EST)
__________Hit -:- Bravo SHP -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:24:29 (EST)
____________Joy -:- Bravo SHP -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:28:07 (EST)
______________SHP -:- Bravo SHP -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:30:45 (EST)
________________Selene -:- Bravo SHP -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:53:39 (EST)
__________________Orlando -:- to Selene again.... -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:15:26 (EST)
__________________SHP -:- Encore from SHP -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:21:37 (EST)
____________________Mike -:- Not bad, shp -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:56:59 (EST)
______________________Selene -:- bad, shp -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:59:18 (EST)
________________________SHP -:- bad, shp -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 16:35:49 (EST)
______________________SHP -:- Mike vs Hot Wheels -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 17:31:49 (EST)
________________________Mike -:- Mike vs Hot Wheels -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:02:24 (EST)
__________________________SHP -:- Mike vs Hot Wheels -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:10:31 (EST)
____________________________Jim -:- You're dumb -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 20:01:12 (EST)
____________________________hamzen -:- Mike vs Hot Wheels -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 20:57:47 (EST)
____________________________Mike -:- Mike vs Boneheads -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 11:16:18 (EST)
____________________________Scott T. -:- Mike vs Hot Wheels -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 12:52:05 (EST)
__________Scott T. -:- to short people -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:10:50 (EST)
____VP -:- Thanks, Selene -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:21:08 (EST)
______Selene -:- Thanks, Selene -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 14:07:45 (EST)
________VP -:- Thanks, Selene -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 14:41:55 (EST)

Jim -:- Op's style -:- Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 15:43:14 (EST)
__op -:- Op's style -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 05:10:11 (EST)
____Jean-Michel -:- Op's style -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 06:29:50 (EST)
______op -:- Op's style -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 08:16:05 (EST)
________Jean-Michel -:- Op's laugh! -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 09:21:52 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- modestly -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:24:49 (EST)
________VP -:- Profits -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 14:15:41 (EST)
________Helen -:- Hey op--regarding profits -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 17:32:37 (EST)
__________SHP -:- Hey op--regarding profits -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 17:58:44 (EST)
____________Katie -:- Hey op--regarding profits -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 18:12:15 (EST)
______________Katie -:- PS to SHP -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 18:14:41 (EST)
________________Helen -:- Satire of the middle class -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:03:51 (EST)
________________Gail -:- The Profit (Prophet) speaks! -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 23:52:04 (EST)
____________Jerry -:- No way, SHP -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 17:54:10 (EST)
______________SHP -:- No way, SHP -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 18:10:08 (EST)
____Jim -:- Be honest with yourself, op -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:31:06 (EST)
______Jean-Michel -:- WHY a cult? -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:25:16 (EST)
________Orlando -:- my answer -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:51:29 (EST)
__________Scott T. -:- as though there's anything new -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 16:23:54 (EST)
____________Helen -:- Succinct, with a punch -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:17:42 (EST)
____________Jethro -:- as though there's anything new -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 02:01:56 (EST)
____________Orlando -:- so... -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 04:20:15 (EST)
______________Scott T. -:- so... -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 12:12:55 (EST)
__________Jean-Michel -:- my answer: no answer -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 03:27:52 (EST)
____________Orlando -:- too bad -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 04:30:43 (EST)
______________Jean-Michel -:- too bad: you're NOT -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 05:08:33 (EST)
____JW -:- Op's Spin -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:25:21 (EST)
______op -:- Op's Spin -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 15:32:07 (EST)
________JW -:- Op's Spin -:- Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 14:23:40 (EST)

Jim -:- Wit and Wisdom -:- Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 15:14:40 (EST)

Jim -:- Surfing with the Stampfers -:- Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 13:25:14 (EST)
__Selene -:- Surfing with the Stampfers -:- Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 19:08:58 (EST)
____Mickey the Pharisee -:- Surfing with the Stampfers -:- Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 23:32:31 (EST)
______stamp act -:- enjoyingonions.org -:- Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 02:11:36 (EST)
__TD -:- Surfing with the Stampfers -:- Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 02:53:35 (EST)

Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:40:03 (EST)
From: nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: Ignorance is Bliss?
Message:


Here is the great biologist, essayist and atheist/humanist JBS Haldane reflecting on a visit to India fifty years ago:


'There is a large body of rationalists among the educated classes in India. Others notably the Brahmo Samaj, are monotheists while claiming to be Hindus. Among my academic colleagues who were obviously dissatisfied with Hinduism as it exists today, I noticed two distinct tendencies. One group either said I could not possibly be interested in Hindu art and ceremonial, or, to take a concrete example, allotted me a period of just half an hour to visit the great temple at Rameshwaram, of which the cloisters alone are 1,200 metres in length, and decorated with sculptures as remarkable as those of any European cathedral. At the end of three hours I still had a great deal to see. I cannot think that a European colleague, because he was an atheist, would have supposed that I should be contented with a glance at the Christian art treasures of Gand or Bruges. In fact, I find some Hindu religious art not merely interesting but moving, and consider that it is as worthwhile learning the mythological stories about Hanuman or Yudhisthira as those about a Christian saint in order to be able to appreciate it...'

(from 'Science and Life: Essays of a Rationalist)

>>>>>>


And here is the modern gurunoid reflecting this week on a similar journey to India, er, or is it Nepal? (never mind - he's not sure which, but it's one or the other):


'See those temples, see those buses, see the children, see that dust, see that maha-mantra, see those earrings, see those mountains, see that sky... Well, just ignore them, they are all distraction. I can only enjoy them as long as I am going to be reminded of what's inside me. That's why we all came to sit and wait for the only person who we can trust to talk, even in silence, to our hearts.

A bhajan is playing as he walks around a painting of the Himalayas, backdropping the stage, and sits before us on the roof of the world.

Even before he reaches for the microphone, the conversation we have been waiting for has begun.'

(John 'enjoyinglife' Carpenter)


>>>>>>

So, instead of paying £1000 approx. for a return flight to the sub-continent whose sights, sounds and cultural riches you're not remotely interested in, why not stay home and put on a video - if all you want to do is watch Lord Tubs walk on to a stage and talk 'even in silence' to your heart, before flying home again?

I would say only one of these writers shows serious signs of spiritual impoverishment (and it sure ain't Haldane...)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:45:35 (EST)
From: nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: nigel
Subject: which reminds me...
Message:
I have just had a vivid flashback to 1979 and a 48 hour ferry and coach trip from London down to Holi in Spain: no money for food, inadequate sleep, and from Calais down to Malaga, daylight hours that were completely filled by premies taking the tour-gui





I have just had a vivid flashback to 1979 and a 48 hour ferry and coach trip from London down to Holi in Spain: no money for food, inadequate sleep, and from Calais down to Malaga, daylight hours that were completely filled by premies taking the tour-guide microphone in turn and giving satsang to everybody on board (including the unfortunate, hired coach company driver)

I had done a little rough travelling in my time and didn't really mind the physical discomforts, but this dawn-to-dusk soundsurround satsang almost drove me out of my mind. (But I suppose that was what it was meant to do.) I also remember a community co-ordinator scowling fiercely when I wanted to leave the coach to answer a call of nature.

The only mild relief came from looking out at the scenery, especially when we came to the truly spectacular Pyrenees as we crossed from France into Spain. Then this blessed sister at the microphone said something like: 'I expect everybody's noticed the beautiful views outside... but we as premies have no need to look out of the window, when we can just find that special place inside etc., etc... Everything we need to focus on in right here in the coach...'

'Aaaaarggh....!'

For about ten seconds, the thought crossed my mind that I had joined a completely insane cult.

It was even worse on the way back when the brothers and sisters shared their darshan experiences.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 14:02:50 (EST)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: nigel
Subject: Ignorance is Bliss?
Message:
Hungry children are just a 'distraction???????????' I can only ENJOY(??????) them when I'm going to be remined of what's inside me??????? This guy is TOTALLY GONE... Period! Go ahead, Mr. Carpenter, just keep on 'enjoying' your view of the hungry children.

God, this guy pisses me off! What a heartless, sanctimonious a**hole!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 22:30:18 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Ignorance is Bliss?
Message:
Mike, Mike, you're getting sucked into negativity, just remember the name and cut out all this thinking, it will bring you nothing but grief.
Life is short,
bliss is all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 16:56:37 (EST)
From: nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: nigel
Subject: More about JBS Haldane
Message:
I got this great little book for 50 pence from my favourite second-hand book shop. I had never read anything by Haldane before, but I can recommend him. He was an evolutionary biologist from the generation before Dawkins or Gould. He has some funny things to say about the 'Argument from Design' which I am posting in srb's thread. But, like Gould, he doesn't just write about evolution and handles just about any subject under the sun in an entertaining way. Unfortunately 'Science and Life' is almost certainly out of print by now (published 1965, but containing essays that go back over fifty years).

BTW: when I used the expression 'spiritually undernourished', I didn't mean in the religious sense, nor even in the sense of knowing about religions - which for an atheist, Haldane seemed to have an encyclopaedic knowledge. Rather, I was referring to 'human spirit', which is the only sense of the word that means anything to me. Something to do with a sense of wonder and a desire to find out about the world and other people and understand why they do the things they do. Also a desire to share knowledge, experiences and everything else with other people. That kind of spirit, if you know what mean. Haldane was certainly all about enjoying life.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 02:00:16 (EST)
From: srb
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: JW, Jerry, and DNA JI
Message:
Nigel gets cheered when people start talking about
the 'beauty' of evolution.
He posted four essential ingredients that seem to play
a role in conciousness in an organism.
the right evolution-large cerebral cortex
adequate structural development-dev of the brain structure.
right brain processes-cyclic,wake sleep, and damaged brains
right chemistry-drugs,psychoactive agents, anaesthetic.
My point would be that these factors don't make a case
either way on the issue of can conciousness exist independent
of the body.
Probably because the science that went into the four points
was nuetral and was just fact seeking.

Jim finds Dawkins theoretical explanations appealing
and says that dawkins admits the limits of his or human knowledge.

Dawkins makes the leap from fact seeking to adamant
speculation when he claims that just because the dna is
digital, that 'proves' that conciousness is an emergent
quality of matter. That the notion that conciouness
can exist without a body is 'very very improbable indeed'.

His writings are actually slanted to indoctrinate the reader
in thinking 'well I guess that is that!'
And another unnesessary convert to the religion of 'materialism'
exists.

I object.

replicators:
Information storage in the beginning of life forms here is
totally unknown. Clay is thought to be the origional template.
Just a guess, no one has a clue how that might actually be done.
rna is guessed as perhaps a follow up to clay as info storage
template for protein synthesis. But existing rna are too
chemically inept to serve this role, again, no one has a clue.
No one has any idea how dna entered the picture.
No one has made any remote guess as to the likely
ancestors of rna and dna.

The idea that random or cumulative selection could recreate
a library overlooks the need for an information processor.
Why does he not honestly deal with that?

His insistence on getting his readers to accept the notion
that unlimited numbers of tiny steps will get you an eye
is touted because it is a hopeful construct that he can
use to prop up his actual agenda, which is to convince the
reader that -it only makes sense- that there is no origional
intelligence.

I am sick to death of religions also, but there is no need to
take science and prothsletize a religious viewpoint.
pro or anti.

Sir David made the point that 'if you imagine a state where
ther was no conciousness, nothing, and no life in the
universe, and from that state there came about awareness,
there is no need to have awareness,So why should the
universe evolve into self aware organisms?
Why not simply evolve into non aware, cause and effect
organisms?'

My guess is that in the beginning there was energy, matter, and information processing (intelligence).
And that the intelligence has self awareness and loves a
fight(struggle).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 09:32:29 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: srb
Subject: JW, Jerry, and DNA JI
Message:
Bill, I've forgotten, already, a lot that Dawkins said about DNA and RNA, but I don't recall him making a connection between either and consciousness. I only recall 'The Blind Watchmaker' being his explanation, based upon scientific findings, for life as it exists on this planet. His argument struck me as being quite reasonable, more so than any other I've heard so far. Yes, there does seem to be a fair amount of speculation going on in the theory of natural selection, but IMHO, all of it is well founded. Arguments against it strike me as being near pathetic attempts to preserve ancient and superstitious beliefs that no longer stand adequately in the face of reason.

You said a lot in your post but one thing that struck me especially was this: Sir David made the point that 'if you imagine a state where ther was no conciousness, nothing, and no life in the universe, and from that state there came about awareness, there is no need to have awareness,So why should the
universe evolve into self aware organisms?
Why not simply evolve into non aware, cause and effect
organisms?'

The point of 'The Blind Watchmaker' is that if non aware, cause and effect organisms were the most suitable for survival, then aware complex organisms would not have survived evolution such as they have. Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. There is no rhyme or reason, or NEED, for why things evolved into what they did other than they were the most suitable to survive in their environment. Because the universe erupted into existence from, apparently, nothing some 15 or so billion years ago does not eliminate the possibility that conscious life forms would one day evolve from that. Based on scientific study, it is quite reasonable to speculate that this is exactly what happenned, in spite of the fact that our pre-programmed minds can't fathom it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 10:06:11 (EST)
From: Sir David
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Jerry
Subject: JW, Jerry, and DNA JI
Message:
I had thought of that Jerry and it is a good answer. Self aware organisms would have an advantage over non aware organisms. But this isn't going far enough. It's also hard to fathom a universe without ANY awarness whatsoever. No awarness at all. That means even the concept of awarness doesn't exist because there is nothing to conceptualise it. Also there is no life. Now the question is, how do you get something from nothing?

It's the same with the universe. If you believe the big bang theory (and Stephen Hawking refutes this theory) then how the hell do you get a massive universe from absolutely nothing? What some scientists are trying to say, I find more unbelievable and nonsensical than the new-agers. i.e. there was nothing, no universe, no matter, no space and no time and no consciousness and there was absolutely no-thing in existence nor had there ever been and then suddenly out of nowhere and for no reason there came into existence a universe and with it, consciousness!

Sorry old chap but this is too ridiculous even for me to believe.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 11:29:57 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: JW, Jerry, and DNA JI
Message:
David, you know I'm not suggesting that consciousness popped up out of nowhere, just like that. It evolved over time as organisms became more complex. As for Stephen Hawking's refuting the big bang theory, I'm not so sure this is true. If that's the case, you've heard something I haven't. My understanding is that it's a standard agreement in cosmology and astrophysics that the big bang theory is correct. Maybe Mike could fill us in more, since this is a topic of great interest to him. Whether the universe erupted from something or nothing is still being hotly debated. It does seem unfathomable that the universe could have come from nothing, but there are informed, educated physicists who have dedicated there lives toward investigating this possibility. They have not yet concluded that it is impossible. I think it would be arrogant of us, who are much less knowledgeable in this field, to call their efforts in resolving this riddle, ridiculous.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 12:28:24 (EST)
From: Saul
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: JW, Jerry, and DNA JI
Message:
| Sir David Says:
|
|It's the same with the universe. If you believe the big bang |theory (and Stephen Hawking refutes this theory) then how the |hell do you get a massive universe from absolutely nothing? What |some scientists are trying to say, I find more unbelievable and |nonsensical than the new-agers.
|
Hi Sir David,

The big bang doesn't mean that the universe started from
nothing. The idea is that at some time in the past, the
universe was much hotter and denser that it is now and has
been expanding ever since (via Einstein's gravity). This idea gives detailed predictions which have been verified
since then. These days, there are ideas like 'inflation' which attempt to explain more than the plain big bang, but the basic picture described by the big bang is still accepted.

Saul
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 18:19:10 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: JW, Jerry, and DNA JI
Message:
Jerry:

RE: Because the universe erupted into existence from, apparently, nothing

Even if you could demonstrate conclusively that awareness could evolve from non-awareness (and I think it beneath contempt to propose that awareness is merely a species of complexity) it is nearly impossible to explain how something could emerge from nothing without a push. To me, it seems intuitive that the statement must be meaningless, except as a demonstration of the poverty of our frame of reference. How can beings who consider the statement intelligible, or who can be satisfied with it, possibly understand what's going on?

I admit that I fall into this same category, more or less. If I had in mind some sort of statement that I thought more intelligible, and could successfully communicate it to at least one other person, then we probably would not be able to maintain, for long, a disagreement about whether God exists. Either way, we would know, and might not be all that impressed with God. Being human is being partially unintelligible, (closer to either speechless unity or speechless separation) though the faithful believe with at least a potential to make sense. Therein lies another quantum leap that's equally hard to describe, though Mark is making an attempt. It's not all that important that we're wrong most of the time. It's only important that we be able to recognize when we're wrong, eventually. I think if you strip all of the techno-speech, and the false starts, from Dawkins that's what you'd find. Is the alternative, that humanity is destined to be forever unintelligible, or that only an elite group can be privvy to the cipher, really worth defending?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:35:28 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Beneath contempt
Message:
Scott, I'm not a scientist, but I do enjoy reading what scientists have discovered and what they're currently studying. I prefer to place myself humble before their expertise and dedication than to be scornful of it. This does not mean that I don't question their findings with my own reason. I do. So far, I find science's explanation for things more reasonable than other explanations, such as the new age or religious type. I find your remark that it is 'beneath contempt to propose that awareness is merely a species of complexity' to be quite arrogant in the face of all the evidence that points in that direction.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 20:57:24 (EST)
From: nigel
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I'm with Jerry, here
Message:
I'm not sure whether the big bang altogether precludes the possibility of some fundamental essence of reality whose nature is always to exist, but to start attributing either 'divine intelligence', 'intention' or 'consciousness' to whatever 'it' may be looks to me like just so much wishful thinking on the part of human beings who have an understandable aversion to regarding themselves as maggot-food.

(hey - I think that was the longest sentence I ever wrote on this forum!)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 02:29:27 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Beneath contempt
Message:
Jerry:

I certainly don't mean to usurpe your opinion. We may not be talking about the same thing. I find the perspective of many of the heavyweight physists and computer scientists at the Santa Fe Institute less than inspiring. To me, it simply represents an effort to shift the mystique formerly reserved for religions to another realm. I doubt that there is a special quality about complexity that is fundamentally irreducible. I've studied the nature of complex systems to some degree, and it is usually possible, though never easy, to follow the thread. If something happens during this piling on of complexity then it is something specific and identifiable. Hayek, the Austrian economist, described the rule of law as an emergent phenomenon, but that is chiefly because he didn't attend the meeting where the nobles said with more than a little opposition: 'I am getting sick and tired of all these feuds. There must be something we can do? Does anyone have any ideas?' And another guy said: 'Well, we could make ourselves subject to the rules. That way we wouldn't be doomed to quarrel and feud about everything. We'd be giving up some of our autonomy, but we could sell stuff without worrying that Sir Theive-alot would freighten away the customers.' The description of that event as 'emergent' is inadequate, implying that because we don't know the names of those noblemen the event was inevitable.

Understanding and following the thread would contribute to science in other areas, and would help us become more coherent about the sort of disagreements we're having. I don't need a high priest to mumble special incantations about something he vaguely refers to as 'emergent phenomena.' To what end? What is beneath contempt is the the deference expected for the word 'emergent,' as though that explains anything. It is simply a scientific superstition.

Ken Arrow, another economist and social scientist, may be a slightly different matter, even though he did a sojourn at the Santa Fe Institute. His work has to do with the concept of Social Choice vs. 'methodological individualism' and Public Choice. There may be aspects of collective decision making that are not reducible to individuals. There is no adequate rational choice theory for why people bother to vote, for instance. The easiest and cheapest way to use money to win an election ought to be to simply pay your opponent's supporters to stay home on election day. But it clearly won't work. Why not?

The condition of my arrogance, as you call it, is that if the Santa Fe folks actually knew anything important about the emergence of life from inanimate complex matter they could explain it to you so that you wouldn't have to take their word for anything. If you think they've done that, fine. That's all I'm saying.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 10:39:37 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Beneath contempt
Message:
I don't need a high priest to mumble special incantations about something he vaguely refers to as 'emergent phenomena.' To what end? What is beneath contempt is the the deference expected for the word 'emergent,' as though that explains anything. It is simply a scientific superstition.

Scott, scientists are not vaguely referring to emergent phenomena. They are studying phenomena, continuously, and publishing what they've so far discovered, as well as what they are currently studying. So far as awareness goes, what they've discovered about the brain (an emergent product of evolution, no?), it is reasonable to propose that awareness is a product of it. This hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the reasonable hypothesis is that this is so. In time, we'll know for sure. Where do you say awareness comes from, that you're so certain science is on the wrong track?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 11:56:57 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Beneath contempt
Message:
Jerry:

This hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the reasonable hypothesis is that this is so. In time, we'll know for sure. Where do you say awareness comes from, that you're so certain science is on the wrong track?

Personally, I think it quite possible that we will never know. I don't think my vote concerning where awareness comes from is all that important. I gather the choice is between matter and non-matter. I think that defines a certain poverty in our frame of reference, and I think science bears some of the responsibility for this. It is possible to trisect an angle using a compass and straightedge if you use folds. Geometers were sufficiently mesmerized by the unrealistic requirements of the Pythagorean challenge that no one noticed this for two thousand years. (Or, if they did they were never published.) I think I can say with confidence that as long as we are limited to the choice of matter or non-matter, without knowing what either is, we will never know 'for sure.'

For a change, I'll ask a question: What is matter? To really get at this this issue of where awareness comes from we have not only to provide an intellectually consistent answer to what matter is, but to change or train our perceptions about it at a gut level to conform with such a definition. I see this as an enormous challenge, not to be taken for granted. Of course this is only a theory, but a highly relevant one.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 12:22:15 (EST)
From: Sir D
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: Beneath contempt
Message:
That's a good one Scott and I agree with you that we're a long way from knowing the answer. The particle accelerators are showing us decade by decade that our previous understanding of what matter is has to be continually rejected and we have to start again. By the way, Stephen Hawking has said that the next generation of particle accelereators should prove his theory that the big bang theory is wrong.

Something we overlook is the fact that we cannot conceptualise what 'nothing' really means. It is less than an absence of 'something'. If as some scientists rationalise, there really was once absolutely nothing in existence on any level, whether matter or antimatter, subatomic particles or indeed any forms of energy - then from that or rather the absence of that, how can anything appear?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 12:57:13 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Sir D
Subject: Beneath contempt
Message:
David:

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I sometimes get lonely, so have to stalk premies to rehabilitate my image.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 13:05:42 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Sir D
Subject: About Hawking
Message:
David:

RE: The particle accelerators are showing us decade by decade that our previous understanding of what matter is has to be continually rejected and we have to start again. By the way, Stephen Hawking has said that the next generation of particle accelereators should prove his theory that the big bang theory is wrong.

It is interesting to speculate about whether part of Hawking's genius is attributable to the way ALS has changed his perceptions. He is physically shut down so his perception of what physical means is different, as is his perception of nothingness. His grasp of these concepts may be enhanced. In general his 'office' as a physicist seems to be that he lets his colleagues know what topics will be important. He has evolved to be a sort of point man for the unknown.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 13:52:23 (EST)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: About Hawking
Message:
Scott: That's a very interesting observation concerning Hawking. You might be right in saying that he has somehow been 'enhanced' by his ALS (that WOULD BE truely unique, by any standard). But I think that his perceptions could, just as easily, be 'skewed' by it (in the negative sense of the word). I hope the former is true, but we will have to wait and see. There is another aspect of Hawking's seemingly endless depth of perception: He has alot of time to sit and THINK! That wasn't meant to be funny, BTW. I've always wondered what an 'unfettered' mind could do, given the ability to communicate through some means that adequately conveys the thinker's concepts. Steve Hawking may just be the highly-educated example of this in action. If so, we are truly fortunate to have him.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 20:06:14 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: About Hawking
Message:
Mike:

His perception would have to be skewed to provide the sort of opening I'm talking about. However, I think your hypothesis about having an unfettered mind is more plausible.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 13:41:03 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Blame the scientists
Message:
I don't think my vote concerning where awareness comes from is all that important. I gather the choice is between matter and non-matter. I think that defines a certain poverty in our frame of reference, and I think science bears some of the responsibility for this.

How can you say this? How can you hold science RESPONSIBLE for the choices available for investigating the roots of awareness? What other choices are there? Aren't scientists just working with what's available to them? You make it seem as if they created the choices, and because of scientists, other choices (whatever they may be) are hidden because of the bumbling or monopolizing ways of scientists. This sounds a little paranoid to me, Scott.

It is possible to trisect an angle using a compass and straightedge if you use folds. Geometers were sufficiently mesmerized by the unrealistic requirements of the Pythagorean challenge that no one noticed this for two thousand years.

Yeah, and natives that lived on volcanic islands used to sacrifice animals to the god that lived in the volcano, never realizing that no such god existed. What's your point, that we're a little slow grasping things? You're right. Maybe we should stop trying to understand, altogether. C'mon Scott, it takes time to figure things out. The brilliant theory of natural selection, itself, is only 150 years old. I'm sure 2000 years from now, science will have grasped things that today we don't even know exist. That's just the way it is. I still find the efforts of science to be more noble in reason than throwing up our hands and saying, 'How did it happen, where did it come from? God did it'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 23:11:45 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: awareness/complexity
Message:
'Even if you could demonstrate conclusively that awareness could evolve from non-awareness (and I think it beneath contempt to propose that awareness is merely a species of complexity)'

Scott, if you can be bothered to step beyond your contempt I would love to know how you can make such a statement, how you arrived at such a position.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 11:06:12 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: awareness/complexity
Message:
Hamzen:

I said it was 'beneath contempt,' meaning that it's not even worth regarding as contemptible. It invests calculus with the qualities of an oracle. Throw a lot of individuals together with a lot of rules, mix, and voila! And by the way, give the credit for discovering this magic to us, the scientific establishment, and especially the physicists. They've been trying to set this up since John Dewey invented the notion of emergence nearly a century ago. Not exactly Eureka. To me, belief in an apriori intelligence based purely on objective evidence makes as much sense as not believing in one, so far. Indeed, many or even most scientists believe in one, or so the polls tell us.

I admit that some research is intriguing. Something unexpected seems to come out of complex conditions, with a certain regularity. That is the essence of science, and it undermines the exclusivity of some of the arguments for awareness beyond matter. That fact does not trouble me. Fair is fair. But, there is then a leap beyond the implications of a useful metaphore, to the conclusion that it must BE creation. I've seen this leap happen a lot. This is human, but it is hardly rigorous. There are just too many unknowns to make such a leap. Basically it is an argument by analogy. Don't you find it troubling?

For the sake of transparency I suppose I ought to say that I am heavily influenced by the skepticism of Thelma Lavine and John Warfield. Thelma seems cognizant of the fundamental philosohpical problems that were introduced by Kant, and fairly scoffs at the idea that the Santa Fe Institute, or evolutionary theory, have made any real contribution toward resolving the central issue, though she laments this. Perhaps I'm giving her too much deference. She's only a philosopher, not a phisical scientist, not a member of the priesthood. But I think her voice is as objective as any I have heard. She recounts with great human interest the demise of positivism, something that most Americans have yet to put on their radar. And I don't get the impression that she fears Kant may have been rendered irrelevant. When one's teachers deride a certain theory or body of work as not even having the credibility to be seriously considered, that probably has an effect. I'm not sure how deep this 'bias' goes, but I'm not likely to step on the bandwagon soon. Waiting to hear the other shoe drop, though I'm not exactly breathless in anticipation as you may have gathered.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 16:46:28 (EST)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: awareness/complexity
Message:
Thank you Scott. It's good to hear the other side of this argued so well. I tried awhile back with my Walker Percy posts about what he calls (with tongue in cheek) 'our triumphant science' and how it can only go so far in answering human questions. Well said.
Now don't jump on me all you scientists. You know I also am wkg in science research right now ( on an NIH cancer study) so I'm not anti-science
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 19:42:31 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: awareness/complexity
Message:
Much to my surprize I'm right with you nearly all the way,or I was until recently. Not really knowing your views I wasn't sure where you were coming from with that previous post.
For myself I had no problem when I started looking for explanations of life from a scientific angle, with the basic notion of evolution. Couldn't see how anyone could have problems with it. If any organism is better adapted to an environment then it will live longer and produce more offspring, if the environment stays reasonably stable then that organism is inevitably going to predominate. Also seeing the reactions of micro-organisms over time, to our attempts to control them, left me in no doubt, for example the effects of anti-biotics. The lack of evidence for the transition periods did leave some worries, but they didn't seem to invalidate the arguments and were likely to be answered. My major question mark surrounded the emergence of consciousness and here evolutionary theory did not convince. Went into systems theory and the whole connectionist model and found scientists who had the same doubts, which was a major relief because I'm not a scientist and though I still had plenty of that premie arrogance I was also starting to shred my own belief system and wanted to find rational possibilities that would not deny my experience of self.
Started reading up on self-organizing systems which felt closer to a coherent whole.
With the possibility that chaos theory and systems in a a non-equilibrium state can change at very fast speeds compared to periods of equilibrium the evidence for change would be expected to be minimal. At the level of analysis I need, that covered my doubts over evidence for evolutionary changes.
This led me onto my general explanatory belief system, I'm sure you have the salt pot handy, based on the evolutionary ideas of Maturana and Varela,autopoesis.
For me they have shown a completely different take on evolutionary theory that does not see consciousness/awareness as an add on but an integrated/essential part of the emergence of self-organizing, self-replicating systems. In their theory, for self-organizing systems to evolve, consciousness/awareness is inevitably part of the whole process.
The problem has been science and it's anti-religious stance which meant the connectionist angle was deemed a non-starter. It's taken AI thirty years to start swinging back toward connectionist/neural net approaches rather than that very linear approach. It's coming up more frequently elsewhere but very slowly, mainly for social reasons that science is riddled with.

Scott, if you're interested in following up, 'The Tree of Knowledge-The Biological Roots Of Human Understanding' is by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. It's their most accessible text although there is a book around the same approach by Fritjof Capra , 'The Web Of Life' which is supposed to be an easier read but is likely to be less rigorous (haven't read it myself).
Would be interested in any responses, have a lot of sympathy with your sceptical position re science, especially the social angle that is so frequently denied. Having said that, wouldn't want even a whiff of what came before it, especially around god, a meaningless word if ever there was one, although I can't deny the poetic value for some people.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 22:41:04 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Ever heard of neuroscience?
Message:
What's with you guys? It's as if you're wilfully avoiding the very field of science that best confronts the question of consciousness. You got an itch and you'll scratch everywhere BUT?

Amazing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 19:02:31 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ever heard of neuroscience?
Message:
Jim, I sometimes wonder if you really are as well read as you seem. Neuro-science is a cross-discipliary subject, the arguments about how the emergence of meta-level/awareness functions came about is well known. For your interest Maturana is a neuro-biologist working within the materialist tradition, not someone out of the anthropic principle school.
Care to define itch and scratch please?
If I am reading you right you're about as good a psychic as Orlando was about Gail!

ham
;)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 22:03:51 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: You're right
Message:
Hamzen,

You're right. I don't know much. But, like the rest of us, I can sometimes sense bullshit when it's coming my way. I first read some Maturana at someone's suggestion here. Was it you? I did another search for him and found some fairly thick prose. I also found this brief description:

Never seen without his long, self-reknitting beatnik scarf; Speaking in circularities to hypnotise his audience; Infuriating colleagues by not referencing anyone other than himself [Maturana’s theory of ‘self-reference’].

Hamzen, I'm not really looking for a mesmerist. Are you? Do you disagree with this description, by the way?

And I found this quote:

'When one puts objectivity in parenthesis, all views, all verses in the multiverse are equally valid. Understanding this, you lose the passion for changing the other. One of the results is that you look apathetic to people. Now, those who do not live with objectivity in parentheses have a passion for changing the other. So they have this passion and you do not. For example, at the university where I work, people may say, ‘Humberto is not really interested in anything,’ because I don’t have the passion in the same sense that the person that has objectivity without parentheses. And I think that this is the main difficulty. To other people you may seem too tolerant. However, if the others also put objectivity in parentheses , you discover that disagreements can only be solved by entering a domain of co-inspiration, in which things are done together because the participants want to do them. With objectivity in parentheses, it is easy to do things together because one is not denying the other in the process of doing them.'

Humberto Maturana - Interview 1985.

I'm sorry, I really think the move in socoiolgy towards this kind of relativism is fucked. How much do I even know about it? Barely enough to have that opinion but I've got it nonetheless. Yeah, I DO think there's an objective reality and I think guys like this are just poets and wordsmiths. If he actually believes what he's saying here, I'd be mighty surprised if he was also a neuro-biologist working within any tradition but his own.

I also read through what I could of this page entitled 'AUTOPOIESIS AND SPIRITUALITY' which, I take it, all stems from Maturana's ideas:

http://members.tripod.com/~Vlad_3_6_7/Autopoiesis.html

Hamzen, there's no way in the world this guy is mainstream. Maybe in Sedona but that's about it. What I see is a whole lot neatly maniuplted jargon and fuzzy spiritual ideas. Yech! Worse than most sociology. Listen, if you like this kind of thing, go for it. But don't tell me I'm missing out on key work in neuroscience by by not spending some time with Maturana. I'd almost rather read Fritjof Capra.

Bottom line, by the way, I'm no expert, never claimed to be. I jsut follow the herd when it comes to science. I'm a commoner. However, I rust the scientific process enough to have some faith in the herd's sense of direction.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 08:19:52 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Maturana AND Varela (1)
Message:
(1) 'I can sometimes SENSE (!) bullshit when it's coming my way.'
So you don't just use logic to justify your worldview. How do you fit intuition into your scheme of things?

(2) 'Ifirst read some Maturana at someone's suggestion here.Was it you?'
Yes

(3) Never seen without his long, self-reknitting beatnik scarf; Speaking in circularities to hypnotise his audience; Infuriating
colleagues by not referencing anyone other than himself [Maturana’s theory of ‘self-reference’].

(4) Want me to post about how Dawkins' body language and clothes sense invalidates his ideas? Give us a break Jim, I'm sorry but that is such a pointless line to take. Of course he deals with circularities, he's dealing with what happens at the meta-levels of self-referencing systems.
In the all the texts of his I've read there have been plenty of references.
Can we just deal with the ideas, sure I could find someone who could criticize you, didn't let your bad taste in music affect the way I perceived your thoughts etc etc.... :)

(5) 'I'm not really looking for a mesmerist. Are you?'
Not at the moment, if I was I'd see a hypno-therapist.

(6) 'When one puts objectivity in parenthesis, all views, all verses in the multiverse are equally valid. Understanding this,you lose the passion for changing the other. One of the results is that you look apathetic to people. Now, those who do not live with objectivity in parentheses have a passion for changing the other. So they have this passion and you do not.For example, at the university where I work, people may say, ‘Humberto is not really interested in anything,’ because I don’t have the passion in the same sense that the person that has objectivity without parentheses. And I think that this is the main difficulty. To other people you may seem too tolerant. However, if the others also put objectivity in parentheses , you discover that disagreements can only be solved by entering a domain of co-inspiration, in which things are done together because the participants want to do them. With objectivity in parentheses, it is easy to do things together because one is not denying the other in the process of doing them.'

Humberto Maturana - Interview 1985.,
If you want to SOLVE problems you must have dialogue, otherwise you're just wasting time and energy. Do you know any other way to do it?

(7) 'I'm sorry, I really think the move in socoiolgy towards this kind of relativism is fucked. How much do I even knowabout it? Barely enough to have that opinion but I've got it nonetheless. Yeah, I DO think there's an objective reality and I think guys like this are just poets and wordsmiths. If he actually believes what he's saying here, I'd be mighty surprised if he was also a neuro-biologist working within any tradition but his own.'
Tell that to all the NLP'ers who are raking it in now, working in business environments. Within the cybernetic tradition this angle is pretty much standard and so easy to prove it's kids play. See my next post, Maturana (2)

(8) 'I also read through what I could of this page entitled 'AUTOPOIESIS AND SPIRITUALITY' which, I take it, all stemsfrom Maturana's ideas:'
http://members.tripod.com/~Vlad_3_6_7/Autopoiesis.html

Sorry Jim, but now you're embarrassing yourself.
Nothing to do with the ideas at all. His (Maturana's) position is a materialist's. Completely does away with any need for spirituality on any level, the WHOLE CONCEPT OF AUTOPOIESIS is that there is is nothing for any living system but itself, for itself. What you've done here is like me going to an anthropic principle site and saying that, ah, evolutionary theory is all about God!

(9) Hamzen, there's no way in the world this guy is mainstream. Maybe in Sedona but that's about it. What I see is a whole lot neatly maniuplted jargon and fuzzy spiritual ideas. Yech! Worse than most sociology. Listen, if you like this kind ofthing, go for it. But don't tell me I'm missing out on key work in neuroscience by by not spending some time with Maturana. I'd almost rather read Fritjof Capra.

Well if you aren't sure enough about my position to think it's worth following up then it's time for some basic biological education for you here on this site. Again see Maturana (2).
I sometimes think you're so fired up about fighting new agers rather than their weak arguments your alert system has lost proportion. If I was feeling a bit pissed off (which I am) about your responses, I might think YOU'VE got an itch and a scratch. He's not mainstream yet, but increasingly is because of the problematic areas outlined elsewhere.

(10) 'Bottom line, by the way, I'm no expert, never claimed to be. I jsut follow the herd when it comes to science. I'm acommoner. However, I rust the scientific process enough to have some faith in the herd's sense of direction.'

Got no problem with this, it's the only way science advances, but let's not get TOO religious about it hey, just weakens your position and makes you look a bit insecure.

And just in case this comes over too angry or whatever, I would like to add that this tendency to rush in blabbing without thinking, in this topic area alone, is the only weakness I've seen from you. I've already had to waste time on a few posts with you because you've jumped the gun. Remember what you said to Gerry about overeacting and too quickly!

Still with much respect,
ham
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 11:16:27 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Maturana AND Varela (1)
Message:
Hamzen,

The quote about Maturana wasn't mine. I'm still interested in your opinion of it, though. Do YOU think the guy speaks in circularities to hypnotize his audience? If not, do you have any idea why someone else would have that opinion? And, tell me, to what extent does this guy do his own thing, science-wise? Please, educate me. I'm looking forward to Maturna (2) in the hopes that you're going to summarize his major idea(s) or at least point me in the right direction on the net to check them out.

By the way, do YOU put 'objectivity in parentheses'? Do you ever think that all 'views of the multiverse [NOT a typical new-agey kind of dumb, word play? - sorry, I just hate that shit. You know, 'herstory' etc.] are equally valid'? Tell me about it.

[Jim](8) 'I also read through what I could of this page entitled 'AUTOPOIESIS AND SPIRITUALITY' which, I take it, all stemsfrom Maturana's ideas:'
http://members.tripod.com/~Vlad_3_6_7/Autopoiesis.html

[Hamzen]Sorry Jim, but now you're embarrassing yourself.
Nothing to do with the ideas at all. His (Maturana's) position is a materialist's. Completely does away with any need for spirituality on any level, the WHOLE CONCEPT OF AUTOPOIESIS is that there is is nothing for any living system but itself, for itself. What you've done here is like me going to an anthropic principle site and saying that, ah, evolutionary theory is all about God!

Now I'm confused. Soon, as you say, I may be embarrassed. You're saying that site has 'nothing to do with Maturana's ideas at all'? Did you actually read the page? Isn't autowhatever his notion? Please, forget about the word 'spirituality' for a moment and tell me just how the ideas there deviate from Maturana. You can see I really know nothing about this. Go on, I'm listening.

[Jim](10) 'Bottom line, by the way, I'm no expert, never claimed to be. I jsut follow the herd when it comes to science. I'm acommoner. However, I rust the scientific process enough to have some faith in the herd's sense of direction.'

[Hamzen]Got no problem with this, it's the only way science advances, but let's not get TOO religious about it hey, just weakens your position and makes you look a bit insecure.

I'm not sure what the right amount of faith is in this process but, let's face it, I'm at a complete loss to opine intelligently on all sorts of stuff. Should I give string theory any credence? (Hell, I barely, BARELY understand the concept. No, I take that back. I DON'T understand it. I just kind of recognize it.) I've just got to go with the herd. For now, anyway.

Show me where Maturana's got any acceptance in the general scientific community and I'll grant him some of mine -- without even knowing why I'm doing it except for my herd instinct. It's not a sure thing, no, but, as bets go, it's a relatively safe one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 11:22:13 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: In defense of Maturena
Message:
Jim,

Here's what Maturena (and Varela) have to say about natural selection in their book 'The Tree of Knowledge':

The word 'selection' is tricky in this context. We have to be careful not to slide unwittingly into a number of connotations that apply to other domains and not to the phenomenon at hand. In effect, we often think of the process of selection as the act of choosing voluntarily from among many alternatives. And it is tempting for us to believe that something similar occurs here, too: through its perturbations, the environment is suposedly 'choosing' which of the many possible changes are taking place. This is completely the opposite of what actually occurs and contradictory to the fact that we are dealing with structurally determined systems. An interaction cannot specify a structural change, because that change is determined by the previous state of the subject unity and not by the structure of the disturbing agent, as we have seen in the previous section. We speak of selection here in the sense that the observer can point out that, from among the many changes he sees possible, each perturbation has triggered ('chosen') one and not another from that whole body. In point of fact, this description is not wholly adequate, for in each ontogeny there occurs only a number of interactions and there is triggered only a number of structural changes, and the whole body of changes that the observer sees as possible exist only in his mind, even though they are possible for different histories. Under the circumstances, the word 'selection' denotes the observer's understanding of what occurs in each ontogeny, even though this understanding arises from his comparative observation of many ontogenies. There are other expressions we could use to describe this phenomenon. Our purpose in referring to it, however, in terms of a selection of paths of structural change is that the word has become inseparable from the history of biology since the time Darwin used it. In his 'Origin of Species', Darwin pointed up from the first time the relation between generational variation and structural coupling. He stated it was 'as if' there were a natural selection, comparable in its separating effect to the artificial selection that a farmer makes of the varieties that interest him. Darwin himself was very clear in pointing out that he never intended to use that word as anything other than an apt metaphor. But soon after, as the theory of evolution began to spread, the notion of 'natural selection' came to be interpreted as a source of instructive interactions from the environment. At this point in the history of biology, it would be impossible to change its nomenclature; it is better to use it, but with the proper understanding. Biology, too, has its ontogeny!

I'd say Maturena is very much mainstream. He's also respected amongst his peers. He's a biologist with a Ph.D., who teaches at the University of Chile. If you were to thumb through his book, I'm sure you'd find it quite fascinating, and would learn a lot from it. He's not a quack.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 18:32:07 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: In defense of Maturena
Message:
I'd say Maturena is very much mainstream. He's also respected amongst his peers. He's a biologist with a Ph.D., who teaches at the University of Chile. If you were to thumb through his book, I'm sure you'd find it quite fascinating, and would learn a lot from it. He's not a quack.

Jerry,

I really know nothing about this guy other than the little I found yesterday and once before when Hamzen referred me to him. Here, he's giving a fairly standard, if somewhat turgid, explanation for the phrase 'natural selection'. No argument there. But this is foundational stuff. What about his own, unique theories? What are they all about? And how do you know he's respected by his peers?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 20:00:29 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: In defense of Maturana
Message:
What about his own, unique theories? What are they all about? And how do you know he's respected by his peers?

At this stage of my learning, I wouldn't know what's 'unique' about Maturana's theories. I don't have that vast a library of understanding that I can compare him to for uniqueness. Maturana is a teacher at a college university. I don't think just anyone achieves this level of respect if he's not respected by his peers.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 21:30:19 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Unsafe assumption
Message:
Maturana is a teacher at a college university. I don't think just anyone achieves this level of respect if he's not respected by his peers.

Jerry,

If that's all you got I'll reserve judgement. There are lots of rogue, renegade or sometimes even batty professors out there protected by tenure.

But, really, your post just puts me on the laert that I know so little about this guy. The big joke is that he COULD indeed be all you think he is. I'm still waiting for Hamzen's second post to drop.

Meanwhile, I think I'll search aroud a bit for some more Maturana stuff myself.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 21:58:47 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: You decide
Message:
[I found this which purports to be an 'interview' with Maturana by a guy named David Mendes in February 1997. It's from the 'Autopoeisis Plus' page located at:

http://www.northnet.com.au/~pfell/index.html

Tell me, Hamzen, does this capture the essence of Maturana's theory as you know it? Jerry?]

'An 'Interview' with Dr Humberto Maturana

Today, in our 'market-oriented' cultures, we continually hear that competition is the natural way for humans, just as, it is claimed, it is in nature. This, we are told, is 'survival of the fittest, the strongest', and it will ultimately yield 'progress'.
Yet, strangely ... when we observe our reaction to people in misfortune or disaster (where a 'competitive' advantage immediately presents itself), we generally find ourselves feeling sympathy, caring and nurturance ... when we are in work, we find we are most satisfied and productive when we cooperate with our fellow workers ... when our closest pets experience us in sadness or bereavement, there is something about their presence that we humans might call empathy for our condition.

So, in these observations in daily life, I claim that we do not see 'competition' operating, we see love, mutual respect, caring. If a coherent explanation of humanness could show that human beings are biologically loving (cooperative) beings, and that 'competition' and 'hierarchy' and 'control' are cultural impositions which negate our humanness, how would our awareness be changed, and how might our behaviours come to differ?

I am a biologist who is interested in explaining humanness, so I am interested in explaining what takes place in daily life, and in explaining how, over evolutionary time, humanness arose.

What is a human being? What do we see when we claim someone to be human? I say that a human being is a living system living in conversations, where a conversation is an entwining of language and emotion ... as the emotion changes, the language changes, as the language changes the emotion changes. I claim that rationality emerges in language, that all rationalities are founded in emotions, and so there are an infinite number of rationalities, or realities. We experience this in daily life when in love we can do certain things, things which make sense or are coherent, which we cannot do when we are in anger.

I also claim that language is our human manner of living together, and is not a communication 'tool'. It is a coordination, or dance, of behaviours that has become more complex. For instance, pointing is an operation in language, where we humans look in the direction of the pointing and not at the finger, while my cat, outside of language, only looks at my finger. I claim that language takes place as one coordinated dance or behaviour coordinates a second, that we live in it, that it can only arise in a mutual dance (and so always requires two beings), and that love is central to the development of this increased complexity and therefore to what makes us human.

How is this so? Well, language involves dramatically increased complexity in relationship and for language to be conserved, and to become a manner of living, this increased complexity of relationship must be maintained. The only way this can take place is where the beings live in mutual respect, caring, and love. If the relationship is one of competition, control or aggression, there will be fracture or parting or withdrawal or death, and language will not be conserved. So I claim that for language to have arisen and to have begun to be conserved some 3 million years ago, the beings in which this took place must have been living in love, and, for a lineage to have formed, this must have existed in their biology.

In other words, I am saying that, understanding language in the way I do, it follows logically that human beings have evolved as biologically loving beings, otherwise language would never have become our manner of living.

How is it then that the history of humanity in the last 3,000 years speaks so much of war, misery, and injustice. I claim that to be human is to be capable of anything which humans can do. Humans can love and can hate, can nurture and can kill, can heal and can torture, and they can do all these things once language is established and conserved. All possibilities are open to us once language has become our manner of living, and what results will in general be formed within the prevailing culture.

Our European culture is one of patriarchy, and patriarchy has appropriation (or ownership) as central ... appropriation of land, of fertility, of objects of all sort, of life itself (we only need look to recent decisions in patent law to see this). So, in patriarchy, control and hierarchy and negation become conserved, and humanness becomes incidental.

Yet within our culture, I think we continue to live a love-based childhood, and that patriarchy becomes impressed on us only as we grow into adulthood. This results in a fundamental schism for us, memories of humanness coexisting with the negation of humanness.

That this is so can be a compelling awareness, for in recognising this, we have the possibility of a different world, a world based in love, mutual respect and care, where the experience of the other is one of acceptance simply because he or she is a human being. That is a world based in humanness, and that is a world I, personally, prefer.

(Footnote: I want to emphasise that I am not saying this as an opinion, nor am I trying to sway anyone to agree with me, nor do I have privileged access to the 'truth' ... I claim that all our 'truths' arise, and only arise, as preferences in our coexistence. As a scientist, I simply want to rigorously explain, clearly stating my starting point and central proposition. In the space here provided, I have not been able to do all this, not been able to argue from first principles. I can only claim that, given more time and space, I can adequately support what I say.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 22:29:35 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Maturana's homepage
Message:
Here's Manturana's homepage:

http://www.inteco.cl/biology/
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 22:57:31 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Maturana's homepage
Message:
Jim,

I don't know much about this stuff (I'm learning, though) but the thing that impressed me in my cursory look at the site was the openness, accessibillity and humility a saw expressed there. Quite a contrast to the Lard of Ignorance and Arrogance.

Real people making an honest attempt at understanding life. Not just rehashing and promoting superstition for profit's sake.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:48:52 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: srb
Subject: Bill, you are SO arrogant!
Message:
The idea that random or cumulative selection could recreate
a library overlooks the need for an information processor.
Why does he not honestly deal with that?

Bill, I'm sorry but you really piss me off in this mode. Yesterday, you knew NOTHING about modern evolutionary theory. Today, you've read what? One book? Two? A few articles? Okay, so then you have some QUESTIONS, perhaps? Like maybe some things in the entire FIELD aren't clear to you? You've got some PROBLEMS with it all? A little CONFUSION, maybe?

But no, you're able to immediately see that a) you've got the whole theory down pat, no further questions necessary -- you, Bill Burke, just get the whole fucking picture from your fast, fast take and b) you know that Dawkins is dishonest! No question about that, is there Bill? Like this is the Bill Burke school squared off against the Dawkins school, or something? You're INTEGRALLY, INTIMATELY familiar with all of his arguments. You've run your ideas by a whole BUNCH of peers and none have fallen. Shucks, you're an EXPERT too, right?

And worse, you've TRIED to reason with Dawkins. The guy won't even comment on your own papers. He's even tried to discourage publishers from reading them you think. He'll stop at nothing...

Bill, you don't know shit about this stuff. Your arrogant dismissal of Dawkins' 'real agenda' as you see it, is simply fantastic. Like you can't tell the difference between the cart and the horse. Dawkins believes something so therefore all his evidence is necessarily cooked in order to prove that 'point'.

I don't know abotu 'intelligence lov[ing] a fight' but i do know that people are incredibly stubborn when their beliefs are challenged. They're willing to immediately impugn the integrity of those that threaten their cherished beliefs. That's what you're doing here, Bill. In spades.

I don't mind you playing around with your pet idea about the breath being conscious all you want. Sure it's kind of embarrassing in a way, but I can explain to any friends I have that drop in here that we all used to think stuff like that and, after all, we WERE in a cult together, right? But when you attack the integrity of some scientist -- or anyone -- I like just in the process of adjusting your blinders, that's going too far.

I'd like to see you even TRY to make your case without raising the spectre of Dawkins being anything but a scientist. That's right, a scientist. The kind that study and speculate and ruminate and get excited about their ideas and even try to educate a bit.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 20:04:05 (EST)
From: stark raving burke
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: St James, your forgetting!!
Message:
Hi there Jimi boy,
Dont FERGIT!

You asked me to post about this remember?
You even wrote my name in the subject heading
during a discussion you had with Jerry about this.
Now you already knew how I felt about this.
I didn't say anything new that I hadn't already come up
with the last time we had fun with this topic.

I think you might have missed the special venom dawkins
has for those dark age noodnicks that fantasize about
god. Now I haven't gotten to read the thread yet as I just got
in, but I wonder if Jerry or JW have had enough interest
in his book to reread it enough to be able to sail above
the authors onslaught of info and see the editorializing.

This author has an intent and a target in his writing and it
is not just to salute good scientific evidence.

He is on a mission.

I see it, it's faulty, If you can drag him over here or find his personal forum or email, maybe he will write.
He doesnt have a job now except to sermonize on his
wishful thinking.

Your still charming Jim to me.
I just dont love all your lovers.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 21:28:11 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: stark raving burke
Subject: Deference
Message:
Bill,

Nothing personal BUT..

Do you actually think you understand evolutionary theory well enough to strike out as you do? That's the part I just don't get. Look, I'm a smart guy. Not the smartest but smart enough. I began to delve into these waters about two years ago and I still feel like I haven't gotten into the deep end yet. What I do see, though, is that there's a worldwide scientific community that's much further along here than I'll probably ever be (what with all my other responsibilities and interests). Are these guys smart? Yeah, I'd say so. Again, like me, maybe not the smartest but smart enough.

I'm going to gamble and say that you are NOT that well-steeped in evolutionary theory. Am I right? How many books, how many articles, how many HOURS have you honestly spent studying it? If it helps you count any, you can use both hands. Am I wrong?

Now all these scientists, I'm lead to believe, don't share any of your criticisms. None of them that I'm aware of think Dawkins is a scammer, trying to pull a fast one off un a gullible public. To the contrary, Bill, to the contrary. Even his famous 'antagonist' within the evolution community, Gould, only squares off with him on a relatively minor point and it sure ain't the point you're talking.

So, I'm a simple guy. Maybe too simple. But, I'll tell you, I DO defer to some extent to all these experts. Bill, they're EXPERTS. That still means something, doesn't it? Do you really think you're seeing through this entire artifice that they, in all their ambition and interest in the truth, just never noticed?

I know sometimes I like to take a strip off pseudo-science types and you might ask me, too, where I think I get MY authority to do so. The answer's simple -- I, personally, don't have any authority. I just keep looking for the expert consensus and try to see if it exists in a healthy enough environment that allows skepticism and dissent where necessary. There's nothing I'm aware of to the contrary. So I read some creationist like Behe's book (Darwin's Black Box), or rather I read excerpts and interviews with the author, and the only reason I can diss it is that I know I've got the whole scientific community backing me up. That's how it works, I figure, until I really develop my own expertise here.

You, on the other hand, come out swinging, immediately impugning Dawkins' smarts and integrity and, by implication, the smarts of every one of those scientists who 'fall for' his stuff. That, Bill, is arrogant.

Now, I did provoke your post, yes I did. But only because this is all unfinished business as far as I'm concerned. You'd slagged Dawkins before and I'm trying to educate you, to help you, to get you back on your feet, dusted off and on the road to atheistic despair. Come on, Bill. Hurry up. There's absolutely nothing waiting for you. :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 17:01:27 (EST)
From: nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: srb
Subject: The Argument from Design
Message:
The Argument from design (from Haldane's Science and Life)

>>>
''Now Paley imagined an intelligent savage picking up a watch and concluding that it had been designed. He then argued that animals show far more evidence of design than watches. And he next argued that the designer had many of the characteristics of the God whom he worshipped.

'To my mind his argument leads to a radically different conclusion. Let us suppose an intelligent savage to come upon one of the battlefields of World War II, and to examine tanks, artillery, rifles, land mines, and other weapons left behind in the desert. He might well conclude that these weapons had been designed, but a slightly further exercise of intelligence would convince him that they had not all been designed by the same person or group of persons. He would conclude that the British weapons had been designed to destroy the German ones, and conversely. He might have a little difficulty if he got evidence that the Germans and Italians had had a scrap on their own, but we may omit this complication.

'Now, the most conspicuous features of animal organization are those which are designed (if they are designed) for competition with other living creatures, and often for their destruction. All animals live by eating other animals or plants. They may kill them, as we kill rabbits and potatoes, or merely eat parts of them, as we eat parts of the apple tree and the flea drinks part of us. A few, such as the blowflies, beetles and 'worms', actually most insect larvae, which eat our bodies if they get the chance, eat only dead food, apart from bacteria. The plants generally compete by pushing, rather than biting. Look at a plantain spreading its leaves over the grass of your lawn, or a tree cutting off the sun from the plants below it till they die. Though only a few higher plants, like the sundew and the mistletoe, actually eat other living things, they are all engaged in a merciless struggle for life.

'…If, then, animals were designed, they were designed for mutual destruction. If there was one designer, he is or was a being with a passion for slaughter, like that of the ancient Romans, and the world is his Colosseum. A much more reasonable consequence of the hypothesis of design is Polytheism If each one of the million or so animal species were the product of a different god, their mutual struggle would be intelligible. One must particularly admire the the ingenuity of the creators of some of the parasites, particularly those with several hosts. For example, the digenetic trematode worms, such as bilharzia, which pass one generation in a water snail and another in human beings, causing an extremely painful chronic disease often terminating in cancer, are an amazing piece of work. So are the malaria parasites, which live alternately in mosquitoes and human blood.

'A seaman dying of thirst on a raft may well curse Whitehead, who invented the torpedo. Trematode larvae surrounding a water snail and ramming their front ends into it look remarkably like little torpedoes when seen through a microscope. And unlike human creation, they multiply inside their victims and produce another generation which kills men or sheep. In fact, Whitehead was a mere ameteur compared with the creator of biharzia.

'Wherever Paley's argument leads, it does not lead to Christianity. If pushed to its logical conclusion it forces us to believe in a malignant creator or, more probably, in a number of malignant creators

'Darwin made it reasonable to reject the argument from design, and the evil god or gods to which it leads if carried to its logical conclusion...'

>>>
amen to that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:18:34 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: nigel
Subject: Nanasoft
Message:
Nigel:

RE: The plants generally compete by pushing, rather than biting. Look at a plantain spreading its leaves over the grass of your lawn, or a tree cutting off the sun from the plants below it till they die. Though only a few higher plants, like the sundew and the mistletoe, actually eat other living things, they are all engaged in a merciless struggle for life.

This description brought me to the consideration that one could make an argument that Microsoft, and possibly Bill Gates himself, is a form of banana-like plantlife. The term 'predatory' may be too anthropomorphic.

'…If, then, animals were designed, they were designed for mutual destruction.

I think that's been covered. It's either a 'design flaw' or a 'work in progress.' It also could be the result of a process that's something like building a ship in a bottle using only bananas as construction tools.

-Scott T.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:42:17 (EST)
From: Little Yiddish Grandma
Email: None
To: Scott T., Jim, Nigel, etc
Subject: OY , YOU GUYS
Message:
Vat the hell are you talkink about, you boys?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:51:07 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Little Yiddish Grandma
Subject: Hey Granny
Message:
Don't worry about what us boys are talking about here. You wouldn't be interested. Go back to knitting or cleaning your dentures or something, OK?

Love,
Little Jerry
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 20:02:18 (EST)
From: Little Yiddish Grandma
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Vat????
Message:
I should pull your ear until your cheeks explode that you should talk to an old voman dat way!!! I am serious. Vy can't you tell an old woman vat the hell you were talkink about without me haffing to get the Cliff's Notes version?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 21:24:39 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Little Yiddish Grandma
Subject: Ok, Granny
Message:
We're speaking about the nature of things such as consciousness and all things that exist and where it all came from, nothing or something, OK? CAN YOU HEAR ME? SHOULD I SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 23:15:31 (EST)
From: Little Yiddish Grandma
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Ok, Granny
Message:
Thank you, you're a nice boy ( are you Jewish?). I'll make you some kugel and you can tell me all about it. I zay ve came from something, how can you come from nothing? Even Little Yiddish Grandma knows dat.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 11:04:01 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Little Yiddish Grandma
Subject: Ok, Granny
Message:
Well, then I guess it's settled. We came from something, if you say so. But there are these yokels called scientists who are actually considering the possibility that way back when, way before kugel, there was nothing and then, voila, there was something. Ain't that something?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 12:27:23 (EST)
From: Little Yiddish Grandma
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Ok, Granny
Message:
Are you premies the same hippies who used to vear tie-die in Miami? I vas visiting my nachas grandchildren there vhen suddenly I see these tie-die hippies everywhere. They ver very nice but spaced out and eating lots of rich food.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 14:01:12 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Little Yiddish Grandma
Subject: Ok, Granny
Message:
That wasn't me, Granny. Maybe somebody else can tell you about that. I think you're right, though.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 16:50:20 (EST)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Ok, Granny
Message:
I thought it vas a reunion of premature babies from ze neo-natal intensive care unit but zen I find out it is a guru convention. I thought 'maybe that's vy they eat so much, they have to put on weight because they were premature babies'. Oy!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 16:52:06 (EST)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Ok, Granny
Message:
I just blew my cover! Yes, I am the Little Yiddish Grandma!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 17:22:06 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: I never would have guessed
Message:
You make a very endearing Little Yiddish Grandma, Helen. Oy!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 23:15:06 (EST)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: LYG still wants to...
Message:
pull your ears!!
(;
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 18:54:16 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: srb
Subject: Why the silence, Joe?
Message:
Hey Joe,

What gives? You tell us you're going to see Dawkins, you know some of us are pretty keen for a report, you see this particular dialogue between Dawkins' supporters and the real experts, yet you say nothing. What are you waiting for?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 01:57:05 (EST)
From: Sir D
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Jim
Subject: Why the silence, Joe?
Message:
Yeah, and I want to know what John Cleese was up to. He's a funny man whatever the circumstance.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 13:09:48 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Okay, Okay
Message:
Well, I did see Cleese and Dawkins together and in person, in an 'uncommon conversation.' It was a great evening.

First the superficial: Dawkins is cute, very cute, (I couldn't help noticing) and funny. Dry humor, quick wit. Cleese has blown up like a balloon. He's gotten pretty fat, but he was funny too. They were at the Herbst Theater which holds around 900, so it was a nice smaller venue.

They had no moderator and just asked each other questions and played off each other on all kinds of topics, with no particular direction. Then there were tons of questions from the audience, which appeared to be made up of equal parts of devotees of Dawkins and devotees of Cleese.

As you know, Buddhism has become quite the yuppie religion in these parts and a number of questions got asked from the Buddhist perspective. I guess there is a group of Buddhists who are almost like atheists. They believe strongly in the evolution of emotions, thought processes, and behaviors and see Buddhism more as a tool to become conscious of our genetic natures and to obtain some respect for our connection with our evolutionary past, rather than having any emphasis on god or spirituality. Both Dawkins and Cleese were quite open and enamored with these questions. It was almost like they were 'Dawkinistic Buddhists.' Very interesting.

A lot of the questions got directed at Cleese about Monty Python, movies, and all that stuff, which was also very funny. Lots of jokes about current events: Monica Lewinsky and Clinton, Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, the British government, etc.

Dawkins talked about the evolution of evolutionary theory and they also talked about the evolution of humor, which was very funny. Lots of depracating comments about the British vs. American senses of humor.

Dawkins is coming back to the same venue in March and I'm going to go, because I'm interested in more focus on what Dawkins has written. Last Wednesday was more 'intellectual entertainment' than much that was substantive.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 14:16:06 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Gay Gene
Message:
Being San Francisco, Dawkins was inevitably asked about the 'gay gene.' He said that the research apears to show there is a genetic propensity to homosexuality, but it was a little less clear how the genetic propensity fits into his 'selfish gene' theory, because presumably homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. Why would a propensity like that evolve?

From what I understood, he said you can't look at the issue in isolation because societal influences are also operating and also evolve. He said that in societies that have been homophobic, gay people tend to reproduce anyway because of societal pressures. [Not the most satisfying answer, because it still doesn't explain why there would be the propensity in the first place.]
In societies that treat homosexuals as equals, or even revere them, (like Native American cultures) they tend not to reproduce but actively participate in raising their nieces and nephews, thus helping them survive and reproduce, as well as their genes. He also said something about aiding in the overall fabric of the society, but that didn't make much sense to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 17:34:03 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Gay Gene
Message:
He said that the research apears to show there is a genetic propensity to homosexuality, but it was a little less clear how the genetic propensity fits into his 'selfish gene' theory, because presumably homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. Why would a propensity like that evolve?

How long has homosexuallity been around? Has it always been, is it a recent development on the evolutionary scale? And if it is a recent development, can it survive natural selection? I think if we're to take the theory of natural selection at face value, the answer can only be no. The ability to reproduce is probably the single most important factor that gives natural selection it's credibility.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 18:04:19 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Gay Gene
Message:
Well I think this is Dawkin's problem. The theory of natural selection doesn't seem to fit.

Gay people seem to have been around since the beginning of recorded history, at least, and there is no evidence that homosexuality is passed down like brown eyes. From the limited studies that have been done, the offspring of gay people are no more likely to be gay that the offspring of heterosexuals, although there is still a genetic link. And the number of homosexuals in the population seems to remain a fairly constant percentage, although admittedly we are talking about studies only in the last 50 years or so. So the theory of natural selection might not apply.

I think it's because there really isn't a 'gay gene,' there is just some sort of genetic propensity to be gay. [I'm not sure how the distinction helps Dawkins, though.]

Whether or not gay people reproduce seems to have no effect on the number of gay people. But the characteristic of being gay would tend to reduce the likelihood of reproduction. So Dawkins is kind of left arguing that while I might not pass my genes on direclty, I might help preserve many of the same genes by perserving and protecting my brother's kids. [I guess that's what he means.]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 08:43:08 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Gay Gene
Message:
There are random factors Jerry, natural drift.
Before you can have reproduction you must have a living system that is capable of replicating it's own structure.
Think we focus too much on reproduction and not enough on living systems.

'reproduction cannot be a part of the organization of living beings because to reproduce something, that something must FIRST constitute a unity and have an organization that defines it.'

Yet again, Maturana and Varela-'Tree of Knowledge'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 11:48:56 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Living systems?
Message:
I don't understand what you're saying, Ham. Maybe if you would give me an example of a 'living system' that fulfills the necessary qualifications for reproduction, one that is 'capable of replicating it's own structure', I'd grasp your concept more easily. Could you please?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 05:39:01 (EST)
From: op
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Gay Gene
Message:
Gay people seem to have been around since the beginning of recorded history, at least, and there is no evidence that homosexuality is passed down like brown eyes. From the limited studies that have been done, the offspring of gay people are no more likely to be gay that the offspring of heterosexuals, although there is still a genetic link.

A couple of comments - ot of course

I used to have gay guppies. I don't think it was due to overcrowding of the aquarium - I'd bred several generations, but the general number of the population remained about the same when I suddenly noticed one male that was not at all interested in the females in the tank but kept trying to mate with a couple of the males. Eventually, one of them responded (or maybe both responded by turns - they were hard to tell apart). Anyway, I was about 14 years old at the time and I found it incredibly interesting. To me, it was definitive proof that homosexuality is a 'natural state'.

About genetic links:

I have a friend with a large Irish family. Five brothers, one sister. Of the five men, four are gay. Genetic predisposition?

On the other hand, another friend is a twin (although fraternal). She is straight, her twin is gay.

It'd be interesting to know the stats among identical twins.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 19:20:04 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Gay Gene
Message:
The ability to reproduce is probably the single most important factor that gives naturalselection it's credibility.

Would you clarify what you mean by this Jerry?

ham
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 20:31:45 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Gay Gene
Message:
Hamzen,

Obviously, if a species or subset of it fails to reproduce, it's not going to survive very long.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 21:55:05 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Gay procreation
Message:
presumably homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. Why would a propensity like that evolve?

My homosexual cousin married a woman and they had four kids. (Now they are divorced.) Another cousin of mine married a homosexual man and they had two children. (He left her later.)I'm sure similar reproduction scenarios have taken place throughout the ages.

Plenty of homosexual couples I know have kids. In many cases, one of the parents is the biological parent. I'm not saying there is a gay gene, but I do think there is some kind of biological predispostion. My opinion, only.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 01:33:49 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Gay procreation
Message:
VP, I think this is what Dawkins was saying about homosexuals tending to procreate more in homophobic societies. I've met quite a few gay men who were once married to women, some of whom have kids from those marriages. Mostly they say that homophobia made it hard for them to accept that they were gay, and so they tried the follow the acceptable route of marriage. Or maybe they knew deep down that they were gay, but saw no feasible life for them as an out gay person since there haven't been many role models. Dawkins said that in societies that accept homosexuals, like Native Americans, homosexuals reproduce less.

And, yes, more gay people are having kids. But Dawkins still has a problem with a genetic tendency by which a person is attracted to someone of the same sex, and hence less likely to procreate. Why would that kind of characteristic evolve if the whole point of evolution is to increase the likelihood that genes will get into the next generation?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 03:55:52 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Gay procreation
Message:
Natural drift?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Nov 26, 1998 at 13:55:09 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Natural Drift?
Message:
What is that?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 18:04:17 (EST)
From: RT
Email: mmmmmmmmmmm
To: Everyone
Subject: A Live Video feed Dec 13
Message:
Just got a call from upper premie dumb that a 20 cities LIVE video feed is scheduled Dec 13th. Announced on the Malibu #,818-889-0500 and local events will have details....a sattelite downlink, a first.

Speculation: I'm told it costs a lot but...not as much as a program in Longing Beach?

RT out
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 18:22:44 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: RT
Subject: A Live Video feed Dec 13
Message:
Say what? What is a live video feed?

VP
Technically challenged
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 19:18:15 (EST)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: RT
Subject: A Live Video feed Dec 13
Message:
I speculated down below that there will be no Long Beach because they don't like the looks of all those empty seats. Rather embarrassing, one would think.

VP I *think* a live video feed just means a satellite broadcast.
And all tv's tuned to the most miraculous of all.
It's going to hurt him, mark my words. If he stops doing live events people will drift. It's the group high that's kept the thing going as long as it has.
But I didn't get high. Had the opposite reaction. Darned contrary biochemistry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 19:55:00 (EST)
From: Sir David
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: A Live Video feed Dec 13
Message:
I never used to get high at programs either. Actually I did at the first one I ever went to which had Maharaji speaking. It was at St Peter's church hall in North London and the place was packed and I just sat outside on the pavement. I couldn't see Maharaji and I wasn't even listening to what he said. I just sat on my own and got into meditation. It could have been Carmen Miranda talking, for all the attention I was paying.

All the other times I listened to Maharaji talking at programs, I felt most uncomfortable and uneasy in his presence. I never got blissed out at the endless programs and festivals and always used to dread it when Maharaji was going to do another one. I remember that the last night at Copenhagen in 1974, (I was an ashram premie at the time) I walked into the program and thought that I couldn't face another evening of this again so I walked right out again and went to view the sites of Copenhagen. Being an ashram premie, I had no money so I begged some off some passing tourists and spent the evening in a cafe while Maharaji was giving satsang. I wish that ex-premie org had been around then because it would have saved me years of self torture and confusion.

Anyway, enough of the ancient history. I have just been to December 13th in my time machine and have come back with some exerpts from Maharaji's satsang. Here they are:

Dear premies, everything is going OK and I am not worried about anything. Knowledge is manifesting itself more than ever. It's so beautiful. That place, that beauty...India was fantastic. Gave knowledge to 500,000 people personally and they are so grateful that they are still breathing. I really feel it now that we are on the threshold of something just so beautiful. That magic...that joy...my enemies...I am not worried about anything, I just ignore them...I have always done things right...when a master comes...

But finally, here is a story which I (Sir David) will tell. Not so much a story as a fact of life. I watched a fascinating wildlife programme on TV the other evening and it showed some tiny ants attacking what was for them, a huge grasshopper, many times their size. The first ant who attacked had his head neatly bitten off by the grasshopper but all the decapitated ant's friends came along and leapt onto the grasshopper and in the end it was covered in little ants, biting into it and cutting its legs off. In the end, the grasshopper sucumbed and stopped wriggling and lay still and died and all the little ants cut it up into neat little pieces and carried them off to their ants-nest. Oh how the mighty fall!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 09:35:37 (EST)
From: Orlando
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Selene...
Message:
please...

Selene says: 'I speculated down below that there will be no Long Beach because they don't like the looks of all those empty seats. Rather embarrassing, one would think.'

I say:
i hope you don't speculate on the stock market, you would be a big time loser...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 10:41:21 (EST)
From: david m
Email: None
To: Orlando
Subject: Stock Market
Message:
Hey Big O........
You really have to be kidding M was a 14 year old who promised he would establish peace on this planet stop all human suffering...if we all went to satsang and did service and gave our lives unconditionally to divine light mission...well we did this and what has become of this...no DLM...thousands of thousands of my own money not to mention..millions of others as welll....what no peace....He's not even the l.o.t.u....anymore just a meditation teacher ...and there not even his techniques....woooops...i think id much rather put my money in the stock market...peace dave
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 11:16:04 (EST)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Orlando
Subject: seats with no one in them
Message:
Right
All those empty seats I saw last year were just reserved for an army of service 'participants' hiding behind doors
(so the doors no one cared about could be guarded
from both sides, no doubt)

And, the hall was already blocked halfway by the
stage set, to compensate further.

No need to worry about my finances by the way. I am doing fine. Don't even have to get way into debt or live off others so that I can travel around all year. Cool.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:05:01 (EST)
From: SHP & Dr. Seuss
Email: None
To: this whole string
Subject: seats with no one in them
Message:
I don't go to movies 'cause critics approve
I don't go to places my peers call a groove
I don't pick out clothes that are fads of the day
I don't play the games that most people still play

I enrolled in a course and I don't really care
If the seats all around me all empty and bare
I came for the teacher and what he could share
If the place is half empty - that's not 'here or there'.

The Way has been spoken of being quite narrow
So we seekers of truth can't push through our wheelbarrow
Of all of the concepts we've carefully gathered
To appease desperate mind with its foaming mouth lathered

If you want to be critical, go right ahead
You can do want you want with your life til you're dead
But you insult not him, but your own power of thinking
By implying that empty seats means it's him stinking

If I were in your shoes, thought I'd been misled
'Bout something important as God, I'd turn red
But I wouldn't waste time, I'd get back on my horse
And ride on until I discovered my source.

For that is the purpose I think, why we're here
To overcome obstacles like anger and fear
And reach the place in us that people call Peace
And party through life til my breath goes, 'I cease'

But that is just me, I can't tell you to do
The things that plain common sense tells me are true
I just like to write and my poems come through
I hope that some common sense rubs off on you

Common sense is not mine, and I don't think I'm better
That any of you, you can tell from this letter
If you read 'tween the lines and you pick up the part
Of my note that's unwritten, and straight from my heart!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:24:29 (EST)
From: Hit
Email: None
To: SHP & Dr. Seuss
Subject: Bravo SHP
Message:
That was great, SHP! Perhaps you and Larkin could have a whole debate in verse!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:28:07 (EST)
From: Joy
Email: None
To: Hit
Subject: Bravo SHP
Message:
It's pretty early in the morning. In trying to type my name (Joy), my fingers were one key off, and it came out Hit. Sorry about that, folks, guess I must be a little drunk on life (probably enjoying it too much).

Just like to add, SHP, that I don't exactly agree with your subject matter, but just liked your style.

Love,
Joy
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:30:45 (EST)
From: SHP
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: Bravo SHP
Message:
Nothing like a hit of joy first thing in the morning!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:53:39 (EST)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: Bravo SHP
Message:
That was clever SHP. Wasn't about my point that I tried (and obviously failed) to make. That being the hall won't happen because it won't be profitable.
But thanks anyway. Come on Larkin, let's hear your version.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:15:26 (EST)
From: Orlando
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: to Selene again....
Message:
Hi Selene
i guess my point was not clear either, so here goes: speculating that there is no long Beach event because of the 'empty seats' is really a wrong guess... For the rest, i don't know you and don't know if you are well off or not
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:21:37 (EST)
From: SHP
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Encore from SHP
Message:
A penny saved is a penny earned
C'mon Selene, haven't you learned?
We all need cash while we're alive
Doesn't mean that someone's jive

If a wise decision is carefully made -
Let's just call a spade a spade
I am not Maharaji's tool
And he is surely no one's fool

To manage cash outlay is wise
It might look shady in your eyes
But doing business smart is holy
Even if he's roly-poly

The nuts and bolts must be made tight
Of worldly matters, not just the 'light'
Stuff has to happen, material plane
And it doesn't cause a 'spiritual stain'.

My son is now 14 or so
Amazing what he claims to know
I'll be a dork in his eyes awhile
And then someday, we'll both just smile

I caught him when he first came out
My hands were those, without a doubt
That touched him first and held his life
I knew back then there'd be some strife

But loved him anyway, I tried
Thorugh diapers, sickness, nights he cried
When the bogeyman needed scaring off
And now he's big as me, with a scoff

Parenting brings one close to divinity
Unconditional love is nitty-grinity
It takes you totally leaving behind
A wiser person, hopefully kind.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:56:59 (EST)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: Not bad, shp
Message:
SHP: You MUST meet Larkin.... he he he. What you said does bring up a good a point of discussion, though. You speak as if M is 'just making a living.' I don't think ANYONE has a problem with 'making a living.' The real problem is the OPULENCE of his lifestyle. Does he really NEED that many cars? Why doesn't he turn some of that 'gratitude' around and put it into programs that aren't so expensive? Why doesn't he use some of it to subsidize travel to those destinations? Why doesn't he house his premies in the finest hotels, at no cost to them? Don't they deserve it? LOVE used to be a two-way street. What's with the 'one-way' sign on HIS expression of it? Yeah, I know... BUT HE GAVE ME THE GIFT... Sorry, but using up all of my hard-earned cash to chase him all over the world and stay in flea-infested swamps just isn't my way of saying, 'I love you.' Obviously, it IS his way of saying it.

I know that when I was a premie, I had NO PROBLEM with feeding and housing the person that would give me 'knowledge,' but this is rediculous! Have you actually been to his house? I have and it is ludicrous. It is WAY BEYOND making a living! I remember, quite vividly, his house in the Palisades. It was in a quiet and expensive neighborhood, but it wasn't ludicrous. A funny sidelight to this latter point is that the ENTIRE ...ahem... Holy Family lived in that house. Remember, too, that EVERYTHING is financed and built by premies. I'll bet there isn't a single nail in his own home that was struck by his own hand. I don't know about you, but if someone insisted on giving me a home, I would be very proactive in my efforts to ease the burden of those building it.... even if it meant swinging a broom to help clean up the construction mess. Oh yeah, I forgot, he's the lord and, thus, is overqualified to swing a broom.... Sorry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:59:18 (EST)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: bad, shp
Message:
As if I couldn't handle and manage money that was
just given to me. pullleeezzzee.
I've heard premies talk like that - well not in rhymes except ARti - but talk about being how impressed they are my
M's money savvy. bullcrap. He would have blown the whole thing, I am sure, if he didn't have all those slaves working it for him. I say he IS a fool.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 16:35:49 (EST)
From: SHP
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: bad, shp
Message:
You said: say he IS a fool.

>'God will take the FOOLISH things of this world to confound the wise and prudent'...
-from someplace in the New Testament
ask Father Mickey for exact location
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 17:31:49 (EST)
From: SHP
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Mike vs Hot Wheels
Message:
Mike,

I think that you and some of your buddies are still attached to cars that Maharaji let go of years ago and are recycled metal by now!

When I was in the holy order (years ago), I took vows, among them the vow of poverty. Poverty does not mean being poor, it means stewardship - the understanding that we own nothing on this earth, not even the molecules that comprise our bodies - and that we will be good stewards of what physical things come under our influence for as long as we have them, and not be attached to them. We used to buy old mansions and fix them up - and they were really neat once rennovated. Sure didn't feel like poverty as some define it!

I can have the same things and enjoy them if I want to make the effort to attain them. Maharaji enjoys himself, something that you need to learn how to do better, instead of looking at him and bitching about what appears to be.

Never, never was a penny demanded of me for the Knowledge or to get into a program. When I had no money, someone either gave or loaned it to me, or I was allowed in at no charge. Then there were times when I was rolling in dough and the very same benefactors who had helped me previously were outside the doors asking for help. I got a real charge from the giving-receiving experience at those times. My relationship with Maharaji is not based on or reliant on money and never has been. Whatever I have given him has been from the heart and without strings or expectations or demands upon him to behave a certain way to satisfy my concepts of what a Master should act like. You are the one hung up on money, not him. I believe that if the money well Maharaji draws from dried up, it would not affect my experience of Knowledge, nor would it make him more or less worthy of his place.
I had the same questions about his opulent lifestyle years ago.
How I got over it was that I accepted his right to enjoy the gifts and the material things that came his way. Much of my early questioning was not due to his actions, but rather due to my American materialistic acculturation...to measure everything in terms of monetary value, etc. Holy people shunned wealth, rich people were smarter and usually wink-nod corrupt, and success was becoming filthy rich....just some of the myths that were exploded in my life somewhat before meeting up with Maharaji, thankfully. I can understand your point of view, but most of the folks who have that perspective are like, my parents, you know?

I remember Maharaji being in Miami at the Brickell ashram patiently standing in line to use the restroom, even though all the premies were trying to shoo him to the front of the line. Far as I'm concerned, any orphaned kid who's trying to show me and anyone who will listen inner peace and whose mother tries to steal his birthright in the bargain, can have anything on this planet he wants, as long as he isn't hurting anybody.

The guy is in the air almost more than he is on the ground, travelling around the world to fulfill his father's agya. I think he takes that quite seriously. So along the way and between stops he has access to enjoy the finer things on this plane. More power to him, dammit!

Next?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:02:24 (EST)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: Mike vs Hot Wheels
Message:
SHP: I know very well what a vow of poverty is and is not. Not once did I mention that I expected M to take a vow of poverty. I'm talking a notably visible, ludicrously opulent, excessive lifestyle. Shall I provide another example? I think I'll ask a question to make my point: Why was M sending his kids to some of the finest schools while telling YOU that an education was a waste of time? Doesn't this seem a bit strange to you? Doesn't this seem a little two-faced? But, hey... whatever floats your boat.

He has NO NEED for a SMOG-BELCHING personal jet... Period! I've asked others this question before: How many TONS of pollutants does one of his trips to Australia dump into the atmosphere? Care to answer that question? But, of course, he's god so he can make pollution disappear, right? No, he's not god, so he can't make it disappear. He can use public transportation to get to events, just like the rest of you. Don't EVEN try to tell me that flying his own Jumbo saves money and/or pollution levels because that would be an outright lie. If he cared one whit for the earth and the life that inhabits it, he would stop THAT nonsense right now! He would have told you guys 'NO,' when it came time to show your gratitude by purchasing an aircraft.

You said that he is in the air almost more than he is on the ground. Say what? I'd like to see those stats. I'll bet you are exaggerating (read that: rationalizing) just a little.

He has NO NEED for gold faucets... Period! Come on, how can you justify this kind of money/resource waste? Gold is a very limited resource and he's using it for faucets????

You are right, SHP, I AM hung up on the money.... the waste of YOUR money (and mine, at one time)! It is being squandered on useless opulence vice humanity. Humanitarian enterprises is what got most of us involved in the first place. It is also the FIRST thing that he dropped from the agenda. He then went about subverting this desire to do some good for the world by convincing premies that it is the 'breath' that's important and it's M that's important.... the 'world' isn't important at all. If you don't believe that he doesn't care about the world, then tell me again HOW MANY TONS OF POLLUTANTS does he dump into the air when he flies from California to Australia?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:10:31 (EST)
From: SHP
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Mike vs Hot Wheels
Message:
Hey, if hemp and DuPont, things I was dialogging about, are off-topic, then so is his jet-shit. No double standards, please.

I can't resist: In answer to the jet-shit argument, I say,

The plusses outweigh the minusses.

I don't care what his water faucets are made out of, just so the gold did not come out of my ancestors teeth, just so his lampshades aren't made out of my great-grandfather's skin, I am cool. I believe that Knowledge is the common denominator.
Sue me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 20:01:12 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: You're dumb
Message:
Hey, if hemp and DuPont, things I was dialogging about, are off-topic, then so is his jet-shit. No double standards, please.

You are thick as a brick, SHP. No, I'm not impressed with your verse. With no effort at all I do worse. And likewise your logic.

IF, for argument's sake, we were all Du-Pont people clamouring on about Dupont, yeah, yeah, yeah, maybe a littel relevance. But we're not and that's the stupidest red herring I've yet seen offered by a red herring. Maharaji's jet, on the other hand, is HIS. It's not ancillary or incidental to some issue. It IS an issue in itself.

Dumb, dumb, DUMB!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 20:57:47 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: Mike vs Hot Wheels
Message:
It's not what you think that matters as far as I see, but would the people coming to k now want to know. For some reason, some of them find information like this and and the historical edits from his lard of the universe days to be censorship and are very pleased to get this info so they can make an INFORMED decision.

Enjoying Life and their additions just amplify this kind of protectiveness and reflect the thinking behind the throne.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 11:16:18 (EST)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: Mike vs Boneheads
Message:
Jeez SHP, talk about a non-answer! Precious and rare resources wasted for a faucet!!!! Our air being polluted for his personal aggrandizement!!!! The 'plusses outweigh the minusses?????'. You are beginning to sound like a real bonehead, bud.

Do you know what gold is needed for? I'll clarify it for you... Marolyn would have DIED without it... Do I have your attention? Do you want to know the answer? It's used in every single integrated circuit, every single transistor that is used within MEDICAL electronics devices. Gold is also used wherever a non-reactive metal is required for medical and other procedures. There isn't an INFINITE supply of the stuff and YOUR LARD is wasting it on FAUCETS!!!! Believe me when I say, without those devices, Marolyn would not have had a chance! Now do you care???? Do you get my point? Probably not...

Now lets talk about the AIR you breathe! Why is it necessary for him to dump unneeded TONS of pollutants in the air? Why can't he ride a fully loaded commercial aircraft so that the pollution can, at the very least, be mitigated by the number of people transported? Why am I wasting my time talking to you about this? But wait.... you DO CARE about your BREATH, right? How well do you think you will BREATHE if pollutants are wantonly dumped into the atmosphere by uncaring individuals like your lard! You talk about dupont and other polluters like they were the nastiest things to inhabit the earth, but when your sweet M dumps tons of pollutants into the air so that he can stroke his incredible EGO by 'flying his very own airplane,' well this is a different story because he's the LARD, right? Talk about DOUBLE STANDARDS! Hey, I tell you what, instead of sucking his toes at the next program, why don't you suck his airplane exhaust instead (realizing, al the while, that he's dumping those pollutants 'just for you')? It should just be DIVINE! Make sure that you do it without any HEARING protection, too... That's another story... noise pollution!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 12:52:05 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: Mike vs Hot Wheels
Message:
SHP:

Hey, if hemp and DuPont, things I was dialogging about, are off-topic, then so is his jet-shit. No double standards, please.
I can't resist: In answer to the jet-shit argument, I say,

The plusses outweigh the minusses.

I don't care what his water faucets are made out of, just so the gold did not come out of my ancestors teeth, just so his lampshades aren't made out of my great-grandfather's skin, I am cool. I believe that Knowledge is the common denominator.
Sue me.

Uh..., what plusses? Oh yes, the plusses to him definitely outweigh the minusses to you, primarily because of all those other minusses that enhance his plusses. We will have to disagree about this. Your standards are just not good enough for me. The fact that he doesn't actually hate you, but merely exploits you, is something to be grateful for, I guess. But you win. I can't sue you. Good argument.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:10:50 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Elevators smell different
Subject: to short people
Message:
SHP:

RE: But you insult not him, but your own power of thinking
By implying that empty seats means it's him stinking

That's what most people used to call a 'straw man.' Sure, the true path may not be noticed, but that's hardly the criterion by which to discern it. It's not the fact that he has few followers that stinks. At least you've apparently noticed the odor. That's a good sign.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:21:08 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Thanks, Selene
Message:
Thanks, Selene. That's what I thought but I wasn't sure. Do you call the number and give them your credit card number or something? Like Pay Per View? Not like I'm going to, I'm just wondering how they are going to do it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 14:07:45 (EST)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Thanks, Selene
Message:
Do I dare 'speculate?' How about bet? I 'bet' that one way or another it is Pay per View. Not sure how but if
it's totally free it's still costs too much.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 14:41:55 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Thanks, Selene
Message:
but if it's totally free it's still costs too much.

Very well said. Maybe writing is your next career...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 15:43:14 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Op's style
Message:
Ever notice how op operates? She lurks forever, unable to say anything intelligible in Maharaji's defence and cognizant of the fact that she's left far too many conversations, avoided far too many questions, to maintain any credibility here. For all intents and purposes, she's gone.

That is until some fresh premie drops in for a chat. Suddenly op appears to whisper to the premie her request that they email her.

Wonder what she tells them? No, that's not really accurate. The fact is I'm sure I can guess.

There is censorship and there is censorship. In the end, though, it's all censorship, isn't it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 05:10:11 (EST)
From: op
Email: None
To: eagle-eyed Jim
Subject: Op's style
Message:
Wonder what she tells them? No, that's not really accurate. The fact is I'm sure I can guess.

Hi Jim:

Let's see - what would cater to your most paranoid fear?

Actually, I'm the PremieInternetPolice, and I email premies telling them that if they don't stay off this site their blisscord will be severed and they will no longer experience nectar.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

But no. The real reason is that I email irrefutable proof that M IS the Lord of the Universe and tell them that under no circumstances are they to reveal this to you.

Or try another one. I send them the real names and addresses of all the people on the site and recruit them into a secret army that is being trained to eradicate all traces of anyone who ever spoke a word against M.

Or, just maybe, how about this one? Sometimes someone says something on the site that strikes a chord in me, reminds me of an experience I've had and would like to share with that person. You know, personal communication? Without being held up to Jim's x-ray vision or Mike's derision. (Please note that I do NOT send off emails to ALL premies who post here. But the fact is, I am naturally gregarious...)

If you recall, sometime last year, you and I had a few email exchanges. I tried, in those, to honestly answer some of the questions you brought up. In fact, there were quite a few questions I answered right here on the forum page.

ALL of my answers were brought up for ridicule. I had sent you one tentative email in which I described SOME of the experiences I have had with M (yes, personal and intimate and physically in person). If you had answered positively to anything I had written, I would have sent more, and I think I implied that in my letter. However, the highest comment from you on anything I said was 'Not impressed'.

So I quit. Most of my communication with the forum since then has been to clarify things where I see obvious errors (such as: Amtext uses unpaid volunteers to canvas universities - untrue - and BTW, AMTEXT is a business, and is not affiliated or in any other way associated with Elan Vital, which is NOT a for-profit corporation) or to fill in information where some had been requested.

I promised in one of my early posts to state only facts I know - no speculation, no second- or third-hand sources. I stand by this still, whether or not I have any credibility in your book, Jim. So, among the reasons for not answering some of your questions is uncertainty of the facts.

And, an addendum, back to the money issue: it is true that videos are sent without cost to third-world areas. Videos are also sent without cost, or at reduced rates, to individuals who set up events and can't afford the usual monthly fee, even in the USA. I won't go into all the details, but you can rest easy that Visions does NOT profit from the sale of videos.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 06:29:50 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Op's style
Message:
I won't go into all the details, but you can rest easy that Visions does NOT profit from the sale of videos.

Of course Visions doesn't make ANY benefit from those videos !

Guess who DOES, and how?

Who does the inspiration and participation meetings, using these materials?
Where does whatever the premies want to 'dedicate' after seeing those wonderful videos go ?
Guess who's bank account # is distributed at those meetings?
Not mine or yours I guess!

What is this called in every culture I guess ?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 08:16:05 (EST)
From: op
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Op's style
Message:
Guess who DOES, and how?

Who does the inspiration and participation meetings, using these materials?
Where does whatever the premies want to 'dedicate' after seeing those wonderful videos go ?
Guess who's bank account # is distributed at those meetings?

Nice bit of paranoia from you too, JM.

Who does the participation meetings?

First of all, you have to distinguish between a participation meeting (usually held by M with information and inspiration for those who want to and do help out at events) and the financial information meetings that I think is what you mean here. Those meetings are not done by M, but by people who make no secret of the fact that one reason for the event is to encourage donations.

Where does the dedication go?

Depends on what each person decides. The catch-all is Elan Vital in the appropriate country. If someone donates without specifying a purpose for the money, it goes into all aspects of tour funding, renting venues, etc. If preferred, a person can earmark money for specific projects: construction in Amaroo or South America, for example. One cannot request that the money be sent directly to M or used for his expenses.

Whose bank account number is distributed?

No one's. No, not even M's. In fact, as has already been stated on this forum, M receives NO fee or remuneration for his presence at events. NONE of the donation money to Elan Vital goes for M's personal needs, nor for those of his family.

What is this called in every culture?

I think it's called fund-raising, if you're referring to how money is gathered for events for which there is no entrance fee.

So, who DOES make a profit from the sale of videos?

Guess what, JM - NOBODY! EV doesn't and Visions doesn't and M doesn't. It's just not the golden-egged duckling that you imagine it to be. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 09:21:52 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Op's laugh!
Message:
Thanks for all this info.

I guess it's only a matter of interpretation!

Nevertheless, I've been part of numerous meetings with m, with instructors, and without m or instructors, where m's account # WAS available on the info desks!

Will you deny this fact?

Maybe EV's policy has been changed since .... some recent exes might confirm this.

BTW: Visions IS EV.
and
Do you have any idea of the rawat & premies own companies working FOR Visions, ie PAID by Visions?
Can you list them? (I can give you a few names)
Those companies MAKE profits.
Where do all these profits go?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:24:49 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: op
Subject: modestly
Message:
OP:

RE: Depends on what each person decides. The catch-all is Elan Vital in the appropriate country. If someone donates without specifying a purpose for the money, it goes into all aspects of tour funding, renting venues, etc. If preferred, a person can earmark money for specific projects: construction in Amaroo or South America, for example. One cannot request that the money be sent directly to M or used for his expenses.

Well, what you SAY about where it goes, or for that matter what I say, really doesn't matter much. We'd all like to know what the links are. I did my dissertation on fundraising, and seeing that I'm something of an expert do you suppose that M. would open the books to me... so we wouldn't have to speculate about this any longer? Just an innocent suggestion.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 14:15:41 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Profits
Message:
op said Who DOES make a profit from the sale of videos?

Guess what, JM - NOBODY! EV doesn't and Visions doesn't and M doesn't. It's just not the golden-egged duckling that you imagine it to be. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I have seen those mail order catalogs that Visions sends around. The videos are expensive, considering you can get a movie VHS at Walmart for around $19.99. The music CD's are expensive, too, compared to the going rate at a music store. (I will give Visions credit for a good yearly sale where the videos are really cheap!)

op, I saw an seperate mailer for a book that costs over $70 dollars-that is a LOT of money, even for a full color coffee table book. (My Van Gogh beauty was only $50) After the printing, the color mailers and postage are paid, where do the profits go? Who gets them? I do know something about business, and I know that a $50 book would make profits, even after paying advertising and printing.

What about the jewelry with the crest, the swan glasses, the watches, the kite etc. All of these items offered in the catalogs are overpriced, which indicates profits to me (provided that the stuff is selling, of course).

I am wondering how you know that the proceeds don't go to M or to EV or Visions in some very legal and creative way. If it doesn't go to him, where does the money go? Are you a book keeper for Visions? If not, I don't know how you can deny profits with all the stuff they are selling plus the donations that M receives. I'm not saying it's wrong for a group to fundraise. If there's nothing clandestine or illegal about it, why not just be honest about where the money goes?

Another question for you: If M doesn't receive all this money, how in the hell does he pay for that house? Even if he paid cash for it, do you have an idea of what the monthly upkeep on a place like that is? I do. Plus car insurance, M's gorgeous suits and his travelling expenses, etc. Does M have a job that we are unaware of? I'm not being rhetorical with these questions, I'm really interested to know.

Have a nice turkey day,
VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 17:32:37 (EST)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Hey op--regarding profits
Message:
Hi op,

Just read your religious jokes which are now in a thread on the 'other side'. Enjoyed 'em, thanks.

op, you seem like a smart person. You say everybody benefits from the sales of these products. Please be honest about this though: Clearly GM 'benefits' more than others. Would you admit that? Why do you think GM needs to live in a house with gold bathroom fixtures? Assuming that GM is sincere about spreading this knowledge, couldn't that $ be better spent 'spreading the knowledge'? Hell, GM's house could be sold and the profit could be used to build thousands of Habitat for Humanity houses. But that's another story. GM doesn't believe in charitable causes: Knowledge is his exclusive project, I know.

See, this is the ethical disconnect. I can't see how premies can have a solid sense of ethics and follow Maharaji. By the way, ob, those pangs of doubt you probably feel once in awhile is called your CONSCIENCE. It's a GOOD THING.

I don't want to beat up premies on this forum--not my goal or my style. I can't stand cruelty of any kind. But man, it's so frustrating when folks can't see the truth in front of them--GM's GREED. You don't think he's greedy?? Tell me why.

Take care ob,

Helen
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 17:58:44 (EST)
From: SHP
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Hey op--regarding profits
Message:
Your all's preoccupation with the material things Maharaji has at his disposal has given me an idea to market to your website, maybe I can get them out to yas before Christmas:

The Perfect Master Doll, complete with raggedy robe, sandals, mud, a begging bowl, and a cardboard box residence.*

Then I could manufacture specialized accessories for anyone who wants to dress up their Perfect Master Doll a little better, like:

a minitiature chevy, split-level suburban house, plastic dog or cat, K-mart wardrobe*

But that's as far as it will go - no beachhouse or corvette or jet or anything like that will ever be made - we must maintain authenticity!!!!!

*each item sold separately

I don't usually resort to sarcasm, but there is an exception to every rule.

Love,
SHP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 18:12:15 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: Hey op--regarding profits
Message:
Very funny (seriously), but two people have separately come up with the idea. I know one of them was VP - he wants to make M action figures. I can't remember the other person. But Perfect Masters through the ages is a new twist on the idea for sure.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 18:14:41 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: PS to SHP
Message:
P.S. to SHP - I can tell you, VP, and (I think it was Helen) have kids! Definitely out of my range of expertise.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:03:51 (EST)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: Satire of the middle class
Message:
SHP,

You seem kinda intrigued by the glamour of GM's ability to make a buck, fly a plane, etc. He's a kind of capitalist hero to you ain't he?

I just think it's obscene HOW Maharaji makes his money and I'm very concerned that he does not give ANY of it back to the community. I know, you'll say he gives back by giving knowledge, but you know some people don't have food to eat, much less suburban station wagons and ramblers.

You seem enamored that GM has a glamorous in-your-face lifestyle that says 'fuck you. I don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of you peons.' It really turns you on, doesn't it? See, I think it's disgusting to earn one's money contributing to ripping off people's minds and critical thinking. I think it's despicable.

I'd rather be a boring middle class schmo with a clear conscience than live GM's lifestyle any day.

You just don't get it, SHP. But you know, I can't convince you of anything...& I can't get myself so worked up over this so peace, brother

Helen
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 23:52:04 (EST)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: OP
Subject: The Profit (Prophet) speaks!
Message:
to coin RT's phrase. The old premies pay. The new premies don't pay much or stay long in the cult. The old premies keep listening to their Profit Maharaj Ji. He keeps them broke and empty (empty-headed that is) decade after decade. There is no liberation from this cult. There is no realization for most old premies. The whole trip is a farce.

If MJ isn't benefiting, where is the money going? How about the suitcases of cash money that have been sent to him from Canada over the years? What has he done with these gifts?

Look at what people paid in Amaroo '97 to stay on 'THE LAND.' They were served pasta or beans for every meal. Everything was done on the cheap for MJ's 'GUESTS.' In fact, it was downright niggardly. Pasta, pasta, pasta! It was like a rerun of Rome '77.

Of course, I am forgetting my place. Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of the Universe. Nothing is too good for God. Bhole Shri, Sat Guru Dev Maharaj Qui Jai!!!!!!!! JSCA. Prostrations at the Holy Lotus Feet. Hansa Bunsa Qui Jai!!!!!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 17:54:10 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: No way, SHP
Message:
I don't want no cheap imitation dolls. I want my Perfect Master doll to be wearing an expensive suit and gold watch, just like the 'real' one does. I also want accessories like a private jet and Rolls Royce. Think you can handle this by Christmas?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 18:10:08 (EST)
From: SHP
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: No way, SHP
Message:
Sarcasm gets one nowhere except stuck in a website like this one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 12:31:06 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Be honest with yourself, op
Message:
If you recall, sometime last year, you and I had a few email exchanges. I tried, in those, to honestly answer some of the questions you brought up. In fact, there were quite a few questions I answered right here on the forum page.

ALL of my answers were brought up for ridicule. I had sent you one tentative email in which I described SOME of the experiences I have had with M (yes, personal and intimate and physically in person). If you had answered positively to anything I had written, I would have sent more, and I think I implied that in my letter. However, the highest comment from you on anything I said was 'Not impressed'.

Op,

I completely take issue with your claiming any credit for trying to answer anything honestly. You're lying and you know it. You are in a cult, remember? Don't talk about things like 'honesty'. You'll only get yourself worked up for nothing. Instead, remember that Maharaji just reinforced the real program last week. YOU CAN'T USE YOUR MIND TO UNDERSTAND TRUTH. Really! And I have to tell YOU this? What's this world coming to?

No, op, the kind of 'answers' you gave me looked like this:

'Maharaji as Lord? or Maharaji as human being? Are there two distinct beings living in one body? There is a mystery there, and try as you might, it will NEVER be solved with your intellect. You will probably spend the rest of your life on the riddle, unless you let go. Only you know how far you have to let
go.'

(May 1, 1997)

Face it, op, when push comes to shove, you're as blatantly resistant to discussing Maharaji as good ol' Bruce. Here's your CULTivated attitude from a lower thread:

I used to love intellectual arguments. I wrote many term papers in my time, complete with reference footnotes and annotations. Some topics still interest 'me' - but they never led me to anything more than more running around in circles.

There's nothing wrong with running in circles - runners do it all the time. There is a peak of fulfillment every time you cross the finish line - one more lap completed!

Op,

I discuss a lot of things with a lot of people. From the abstract, philosophical subjects we sometimes hash out here to all of the specifics of any of the cases I work on. The only time I ever feel like I'm 'running in circles' is when I'm talking with someone who's being evasive. Even my mentally challenged clients don't make me feel I'm going in circles. It might take a little longer with some to get the point across but, hey, no circles.

You get 'circles' for one reason only -- you're creating them. And how do you do that? One way is by talking out of both sides of your mouth just as you're doing here.

Straighten up and fly right, op.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:25:16 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: WHY a cult?
Message:
Hey Op, & premies lurkers

WHY do YOU think some people consider you as members
of a cult?
HOW come that EV/DLM is considered as a cult?

Did you EVER try to figure out why?

Can you honestly answer that question?

Why do YOU think EV is not a cult,
and
why do YOU think some other groups are really cults?

WHY WHY WHY ???
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:51:29 (EST)
From: Orlando
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: my answer
Message:
Hi JM
for many years i argued about this and got really tired of it. For someone who is convinced that i am in a cult, there is nothing i can say to convince otherwise, because no matter what i say, the person will label me 'cult member' and think my argument is part of my brainwashing. so i basically gave up.
but i do believe that actions speak louder than words. My own mother does the arguing for me now! (no, she is not a premie...she is a practicing Catholic....)
In conclusion, if anybody thinks i am in a cult, so be it...i don't care
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 16:23:54 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Orlando
Subject: as though there's anything new
Message:
Orlando:

If you have been wrongfully identified as belonging to a cult then fatalism is probably not the appropriate response. It sends the message that you can be effectively bullied and hounded. On the other hand, if you have been correctly diagnosed then it may be just the ticket. Too much dissonance brought to a conscious level might actually result in consciousness, a risky proposition.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 19:17:42 (EST)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Succinct, with a punch
Message:
Scott,
You ever think of running for office? I like the way you construct an argument.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 02:01:56 (EST)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: as though there's anything new
Message:
Hi Scott

'Too much dissonance brought to a conscious level might actually result in consciousness, a risky proposition.'

When i was premie, I used to take propagation very very seriously., in particular when I was the propagation co-ordinatior. I used to go to Mormons, Xtians of various denominations, Moonies, Hare Krishnas, various Muslim sects, shop keepers,Childer of God....etc ...etc. I ALWAYS out argued them using their own scriptures/belief system and brought a lot of them to prempal.........I was always convinced that THEY were all cults.
It was only some years later, by my own observation of my own cognitive dissonence ... and eventually admitting it to myself, that I really did begin to become conscious.
It's really difficult to rebuild from scratch...but more than possible.

regards Jethro
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 04:20:15 (EST)
From: Orlando
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: so...
Message:
you just proved my point...it is useless to argue about this, in your eyes, i will always be wrong.
i am really enjoying my life
so...I am in a cult? sue me
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 12:12:55 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Orlando
Subject: so...
Message:
Orlando:

you just proved my point...it is useless to argue about this, in your eyes, i will always be wrong.
i am really enjoying my life
so...I am in a cult? sue me

It is apparently of no consequence to you, and I don't have grounds to sue. You win.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 03:27:52 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Orlando
Subject: my answer: no answer
Message:
Hi Orlando,

OK maybe I didn't make myself clear enough:

I'm not asking you to justify your involvement with m&k, I could do that myself, I've been involved for so long!

What I'm asking is this:

can YOU figure out what's happening in those peoples' mind who say premies are in a cult, and what m is running is a cult?
Some of these people (like your mother) obviously like/love you, and they don't think that to be mean to you I guess.

They don't repeat what others are saying, in most of the cases I guess.

What CAN they see that makes them THINK (I don't say they are right or wrong) this way?

That's a very simple question every premie should be able to answer, without going into his mind.

Then my next question would be, if you really answer to that 1st one, why do YOU think they are wrong, how do you justify what you're doing and being misinterpretated.

Every premie should be proud to do that, why aren't you!!!

I've heard m himself say so many times that premies should be proud of their faith, of their master and of their involvement.

Can you express this publicly?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 04:30:43 (EST)
From: Orlando
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: too bad
Message:
Hi JM
you say: 'That's a very simple question every premie should be able to answer, without going into his mind.'

my answer:why would i bother having a dialogue with someone who is convinced i am an idiot?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 05:08:33 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Orlando
Subject: too bad: you're NOT
Message:
Why do YOU think anybody thinks this?

I certainly don't, nor does your mother or your friends!

I guess that if you try to understand that simple question,
that would be very helpful for you.

These people have a different opinion, WHY ?

You use your brain to think to so many things, thinking to that one might solve some of your problems with those people (you think they think you're an idiot - when you are not).

I've tried to solve that one for me, and I guess I did.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 13:25:21 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Op's Spin
Message:
Actually, I'm the PremieInternetPolice, and I email premies telling them that if they don't stay off this site their blisscord will be severed and they will no longer experience nectar.

Reducing something to absurdity doesn't disprove something, Op. I think you e-mail premies to tell them whatever scoop you have from PAM as to what the official attitude is towards this website. You seem to be an official spokesperson of EV, Amtext and several other organizations, but your expertise for doing so has never been established. How do you know this stuff op?

AMTEXT is a business,and is not affiliated or in any other way associated with Elan Vital, which is NOT a for-profit corporation)

Again, you give no qualifications for knowing this information, op; how the hell do you know this? But I don't think anyone has suggested that Amtext is officially connected to EV, so your statement here kind of misses the point. We are getting information that several honchos around M have made lots and lots of money off Amtext, specifically people like Michael Donner and Michael Dettmers. I can give you a couple of other businesses in which individual premies made large amounts of money, while the premies who worked there either worked for nothing or for slave wages.

Prior to the incarnation of Amtext there was a premie book-buying business, the proceeds of which were donated directly to Maharaji and to his Boeing 707 plane project, you know, the project in which Maharaji lied even to the premies and told them the money was for a 'world tour' instead of for a plane with gold plumbing fixtures and computer-controlled showers? It definitely did start out on slave labor. But there being no ashrams anymore, I'm not surprised that people are paid something these days, but like any pyramid scheme, I'm sure people at the top, do quite well, and when the organization they work for is directly connected to supporting the Lord's work, and the Lord himself, theses premies tend to work harder, and for less, that people in a standard for-profit business. I think that's the potential for abuse that concerns many of us.

This is aside from the questionable nature of the business to begin with. Yes, the books are 'used' but they were never SOLD in the first place, they were SAMPLES, not intended for re-sale. So, it is a real problem for authors, who get no royalties for the book, despite the fact it is being sold as a 'resale' when it was never sold in the first place.

I won't go into all the details, but you can rest easy that Visions does NOT profit from the sale of videos.

Once again, Op, how do you know this? Do you have proof? I simply have a hard time believing that videos that cost so much money aren't profitable. Maybe 'visions' doesn't make the money, but someone does. Somehow, I think I know who it is.

I'm also quite confident that M's mailing address for donations is still freely distributed as JM mentioned. As I have said several times, back in the 70s and 80s we were instructed, by honchos in Divine Light Mission, to send money directly to Malibu, via checks made out to 'Guru Maharaj Ji.' There was no confusion about where the money was going. As ashram housefather, I sent more money to Malibu than I ever did to DLM as our 'service' to Guru Maharaj Ji. Perhaps M wasn't a complete spendthrift and stashed it away in Swiss Bank accounts and therefore doesn't need as much income these days. PAM premies who have left M, one in particular, has reported that she was responsible for transfering hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash raised in darshan lines directly to Swiss bank accounts for M's personal use. And he did MANY darshan lines int eh 70s and 80s, certainly he raised millions for himself doing that.

Perhaps he doesn't NEED the cash as much anymore, although I know he always wants a new plane, etc, and fundraising still goes on.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 15:32:07 (EST)
From: op
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Op's Spin
Message:
Once again, Op, how do you know this? Do you have proof? I simply have a hard time believing that videos that cost so much money aren't profitable. Maybe 'visions' doesn't make the money, but someone does. Somehow, I think I know who it is.

Hi JW:

I mentioned a long time ago that I have to remain anonymous for various reasons. That also means I can't post an answer to your question. I'm sorry about that, and if we ever meet person to person I could let you know all the details of how I know what I know. Till then, you can trust what I say or not.

As for the second part of this paragraph - I'll just repeat it: M does NOT make any profit from Visions sales. His personal expenses are not connected with EV and Visions in any way.

And he's very happy with the current airplane, BTW. How do I know that? He told me.

Before you accuse me of better-than-thouism, I'll clarify that: in front of several thousand people at events, in front of a few people in other circumstances, and through others at meetings where his current needs are discussed.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 14:23:40 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Op's Spin
Message:
I'll clarify that: in front of several thousand people at events, in front of a few people in other circumstances, and through others at meetings where his current needs are discussed.

Is this the same meeting Still Crazy went to, in which Maharaji displayed graphs and pie charts, none of which had ANY numbers on them?

I can understand your need for anonymity, as there are others who post here who feel the same way. But I don't see why you can't say why you know this information? You don't have to give your name to do so.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 15:14:40 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Wit and Wisdom
Message:
From the book The Trouble with Science by Robin Dunbar:

'I can do no better than to end this chapter by quoting the philosopher Dan Dennett's reflections on the way modern neuro-biology has debunked pseudo-religious mystical views of human consciousness:

Looking on the bright side, let us remind ourselves what has happened in the wake of earlier demystifications. We find no diminution of wonder: on the contrary, we find deeper beauties and more dazzling visions of the complexity of the universe than the protectors of mystery ever conceived. The 'magic' of earlier visions was, for the most part, a cover-up for frank failures of imagination, a boring dodge enshrined in the concept of a deus ex machina. Fiery gods driving golden chariots accross the skies are simple-minded comic book fare compared to the ravishing strangeness of contemporary cosmology, and the recursive intricacies of the reproductive machinery of DNA make elan vital about as interesting as Superman's dread kryptonite. When we understand consciousness -- when there is no more mystery -- consciousness will be different, but there will still be beauty, and more room than ever for awe.

Dennet, p. 25 (Consciousness Explained)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 13:25:14 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Surfing with the Stampfers
Message:
While browsing the stacks at ELK, checking to see that all my merchandise is still proudly displayed, I came across the fun-loving Stampfer family. First, mum:

'Tears of gratitude

Having heard about this site I was excited to find it immediately, I 'searched' for it.

I spend a fair amount of time on the 'net' but never before have I surfed into a site and found tears of gratitude welling up inside me.

Sitting at my desk here at work I am grateful that I have these few moments of quiet to reflect on half a life-time of gratitude for what I have been given.

My tears of gratitude are for the inspiration from all those who have felt to place their expressions here for me to read and for the gift of Knowledge that Maharaji gave me 22 years ago.

Thank you.

Peta Stampfer

Bristol, UK'

Then dad:

'Tears in my eyes

I sit at my PC for eight hours a day and then I was told about this wonderful website, I now sit with tears in my eyes. I can only spend a short time reading Expressions as I am likely to break down altogether and get very funny looks from my work colleagues! Thanks for this website. Any help at all to keep me connected with you Maharaji is very gratefully received.'

It's too bad the entire Stampfer family didn't post something. Really, can you imagine Saturday morning at the Stampfer house? I can. It'd be like a scene out of Coneheads.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 19:08:58 (EST)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Surfing with the Stampfers
Message:
Maybe we can find comfort in the idea that they didn't procreate.
We can hope.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 23:32:31 (EST)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Surfing with the Stampfers
Message:
I don't know, guys; I gotta admit that reading enjoyingsittingunderanIndianprintbedspreadhyperventilatingwithmythumbsinmyears.org makes me cry, too!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 02:11:36 (EST)
From: stamp act
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: enjoyingonions.org
Message:
Sounds like another ex premie post!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Nov 24, 1998 at 02:53:35 (EST)
From: TD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Surfing with the Stampfers
Message:
it's too bad the entire Stampfer family didn't post something. Really, can you imagine Saturday morning at the Stampfer house? I can. It'd be like a scene out of Coneheads.

Too funny! I immediately thought of Ned Flanders and his family in The Simpsons.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index