Charles S -:- To Mike Finch: Hope you are feeling better... -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 20:26:04 (GMT)

__ Mike Finch -:- To Mike Finch: Hope you are feeling better... -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 14:53:47 (GMT)

__ __ AJW -:- Welcome back to the Madhouse Mike. -:- Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 13:32:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Welcome back to the Madhouse Mike. -:- Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 15:21:46 (GMT)

__ __ Kelly -:- To Mike Finch: Hope you are feeling better... -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 21:12:10 (GMT)

__ __ Charles S -:- To Mike Finch:feeling better... -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 19:27:31 (GMT)

__ __ Pat Conlon -:- To Mike Finch: I'm glad you are feeling better -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 18:18:23 (GMT)

__ Kelly -:- To Mike Finch: Hope you are feeling better... -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 23:11:24 (GMT)

__ __ Marianne -:- Gulp -- 25th anniversary Divine Times? -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 16:58:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ Kelly -:- Gulp -- 25th anniversary Divine Times? Watch out -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 20:49:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Marianne -:- But will yoube wearing patchouli oil? -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 23:15:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Kelly -:- patchouli oil? you gotta be kidding right? -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 23:51:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Eau de Lingus? -:- Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 11:56:54 (GMT)

Jim -:- Defining truth and all that (continued) -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:53:27 (GMT)

__ Scott T. -:- Been away, sorry. -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 00:48:29 (GMT)

__ Michael Dettmers -:- Now we're getting somewhere -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 15:01:09 (GMT)

__ __ hamzen -:- Classic example:Experience god with brain magnets -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 21:06:03 (GMT)

__ __ Jerry -:- Now we're getting somewhere -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 18:19:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Et tu, Jerry? -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 18:36:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Not entirely -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 22:21:08 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Now we're getting somewhere -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 17:44:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Good questions -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 20:39:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Good questions -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:35:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Good questions -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 23:08:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Not that rare really -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 21:31:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Not that rare really -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 07:57:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Maturana/Varela enabled me to break from gm -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 03:14:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Maturana/Varela enabled me to break from gm -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 16:07:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Flores.....To Michael... -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 00:25:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Flores..... To Michael... -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:02:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Flores..... To Michael... -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 17:18:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Care to try again, Mike? -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:22:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Care to try again, Mike? -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 16:02:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- est is now called the Forum . . . -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 17:32:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- What's your email? -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 21:48:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ dj cuttlefish/ham -:- You trying to get me hot and bothered marianne!! -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 21:52:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ dj cuttlefish -:- Now we're getting somewhere -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 20:34:56 (GMT)

__ Deputy Dog -:- Defining truth and all that (continued) -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:46:39 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Your sarcasm belies some good, honest confusion -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:17:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Honest confusion? Ha! -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:23:38 (GMT)

__ __ Jerry -:- Some other thoughts on the matter -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 04:31:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Some other thoughts on the matter -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:57:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Some other thoughts on the matter -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 14:35:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh come off it with this Ram Dass shit, already -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:02:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Oh come off it with this Ram Dass shit, already -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:16:14 (GMT)

__ __ hamzen -:- Then surely you should stay silent 'about' -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 01:11:58 (GMT)

__ Michael Dettmers -:- Defining truth and all that (continued) -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:41:58 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Defining truth and all that (continued) -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 03:59:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Defining truth and all that (continued) -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 13:32:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ janet -:- Defining truth and all that (continued).. -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 11:18:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- ... and here's why -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:44:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Congratulations. -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 02:55:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Congratulations. -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:07:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- On another level... -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:29:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ bill -:- he is talking about how we define reality on FV.nt -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:32:12 (GMT)

__ __ Clarification! -:- Defining truth and all that (continued) -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 01:35:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ 5'11'bill -:- egad dog, I hope MD dissects your truth.nt -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 02:22:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ 5'11'vilhelm -:- I see he did already in the inactive file .nt -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:45:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- My earlier post. -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:02:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Bazza -:- Yap yap yap -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 07:30:26 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Steve Quint -:- Yap yap yap -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 07:40:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- I'm a little teapot -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 07:13:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- chang tzu is barking and talking! -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:26:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Chuang Tzu is barking up the wrong tree - -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 16:23:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Sorry, Clarification = Deputy Dog (nt) -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 01:39:34 (GMT)

__ __ Joe -:- Assessment -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:56:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Assessment -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 04:14:09 (GMT)

__ Patrick (Anon) -:- Defining truth and all that (continued) -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 23:48:13 (GMT)

__ __ Kelly -:- Defining truth and all that (continued) -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:08:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ Cynthia -:- I agree, Kelly, but... -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 00:32:40 (GMT)

__ ham -:- This should be interesting :) (nt) -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:55:56 (GMT)

Postie -:- Origins of M's abusive behavior -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:49:48 (GMT)

__ bill -:- Origins of M's abusive behavior -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:21:36 (GMT)

__ __ janet -:- his midlife crisis clues-where are these? -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 17:07:41 (GMT)

__ Cynthia -:- Origins of M's abusive behavior -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 23:18:50 (GMT)

__ __ Postie -:- It's never too late for M to change.... -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 02:10:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joy -:- It's Never Too Late -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:27:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- It's Never Too Late -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 21:39:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Postie -:- ACOAWATTWA = Self help group for retired avatars -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 05:07:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- ACOAWATTWA--How'd he get through the 1ST STEP! nt -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 17:14:26 (GMT)

Joe -:- The new use for the Kissimee swamp.site -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:04:25 (GMT)

__ Cynthia -:- I was wondering about that Kissimee swamp.site -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:37:16 (GMT)

__ __ Brian S -:- the best thing about that site was -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 23:44:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ moldy warp -:- the best thing about that site was -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 04:56:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ bill -:- yeah I liked those oranges.nt -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:24:35 (GMT)

ex-flowerchild -:- bragons, blankets, bollocks -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:48:37 (GMT)

__ janet -:- barogans, blankets, -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 17:47:00 (GMT)

__ Bazza -:- Saying howdy -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 03:57:25 (GMT)

__ Been There -:- baragans -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:49:31 (GMT)

__ Kelly -:- bragons, blankets, bollocks -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 22:07:02 (GMT)

__ Cynthia -:- Deluxe Model with Indian Print blanket cover.... -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:50:43 (GMT)

__ Jean-Michel -:- Here's another beragon retailor -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 17:50:03 (GMT)

__ __ Don Clark -:- Eternal Glory of Baba Nand Singh Ji Maharaj -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 18:54:22 (GMT)

__ __ bill -:- proudly claiming he is a 'feet licker'..nt -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:28:30 (GMT)

__ __ Joe -:- All Seven Core Pores Aligned with Immortal Nam.. -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:55:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ Moldy Warp -:- Oops I have gone fron dataar to daar or dart or -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:10:55 (GMT)

__ __ Jean-Paul -:- Links to god ... -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:47:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ RT -:- guru rating 'service' Hum Drum -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 03:42:50 (GMT)

Gregg -:- Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 15:46:05 (GMT)

__ ex-flowerchild -:- Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:07:30 (GMT)

__ __ Monmot -:- Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:35:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ ex-flowerchild -:- Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:53:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Monmot -:- Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 17:04:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- I think colonialism had a lot to do with it. -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:11:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Monmot -:- I think colonialism had a lot to do with it. -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:18:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Megacities -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 20:23:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ Ulf -:- Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:42:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ ex-flowerchild -:- Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:55:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Ulf -:- Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 22:05:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Early victorian times I'm sure -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:53:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ ex-flowerchild -:- Early victorian times I'm sure -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 02:24:21 (GMT)

Jean-Michel -:- EV-DLM Papers Download page just updated -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:56:55 (GMT)

Lilly -:- You made me smile! -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:00:56 (GMT)

__ Kelly -:- You made me smile! -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:40:14 (GMT)

__ JHB -:- You made me smile! -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:25:14 (GMT)

__ __ c.g. -:- 3 Critisisms -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:40:54 (GMT)

bill -:- Pirates of the Caribean Sea -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 13:53:17 (GMT)

__ Joe -:- That's my favorite ride at Disneyland -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 17:12:26 (GMT)

__ __ Cynthia -:- Joe, you're making me laugh -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:58:37 (GMT)

__ Stonor -:- Pirates of the Caribean Sea -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 15:16:34 (GMT)

__ salam -:- Well I hope he gets kidnapped -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:19:50 (GMT)

JTF -:- Why was the Holy Family SCHISM kept secret by M? -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 13:24:57 (GMT)

__ Francesca -:- And I was caught in the crossfire of that -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:43:02 (GMT)

__ __ JTF -:- And I was caught in the crossfire of that/also.... -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 10:59:11 (GMT)

AJW -:- Captain Rawat -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 08:26:20 (GMT)

__ la-ex -:- Captain Rawat/Getting this info out... -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 02:22:25 (GMT)

__ __ AJW -:- Captain Rawat/Getting this info out... -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 10:34:03 (GMT)

__ Ulf -:- Captain Rawat -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 12:30:45 (GMT)

__ __ AJW -:- Captain Rawat -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 13:03:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ Cynthia-Scorpio-I -:- Security Update -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:52:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ AJW -:- Watch this space -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 20:10:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Loaf -:- infamy... infamy !!! -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 08:03:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ AJW -:- Oooooer Missuz. (ott) -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 10:45:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ salam -:- Am digging -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:46:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Steve Quint -:- Happy Valentine's Day -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:27:58 (GMT)

__ Know It All -:- It's all a charade -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 11:04:27 (GMT)

__ Jethro -:- Racist Indians -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 10:43:21 (GMT)

__ __ Pat Conlon -:- Jethro and cq: Racist Indians -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 03:41:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ Steve Quint -:- Doctors In Bad Form -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 16:59:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ JHB -:- Tell the Story!!!! -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 16:48:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Pat, Tell the Story!!!! Please?? nt -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 17:52:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ Katie -:- Pat - racism and sexism - this is important -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 16:34:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Katie, Cythia, JHB and Steve: I'll tell it -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 18:41:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Patrick C -:- To cut a long story short.... -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 20:07:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- News to me/also re HIV infection rates. -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 07:08:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Joe -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:59:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- To cut a long story short.... -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 23:42:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Thanks John, it has taken SF many years to recover -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:59:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Thanks Patrick -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 22:39:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Pat, Thanks for your story... -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 21:09:15 (GMT)

__ __ Steve Quint -:- Racist Indians -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 13:18:38 (GMT)

__ Pat Conlon -:- Captain Rawat -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 09:43:38 (GMT)

Joe -:- Maharaji Abuses, Continued -:- Thurs, Feb 08, 2001 at 22:45:09 (GMT)

__ Jean-Michel -:- He got tomatoes in France at a public program -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 10:01:46 (GMT)

__ __ Paul -:- Hi JM. Just what you'd expect from the French. nt -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:42:43 (GMT)

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 20:26:04 (GMT) From: Charles S Email: bctanda@hotmail.com To: Mike Finch Subject: To Mike Finch: Hope you are feeling better... Message:

A friend of yours posted here earlier that you were not posting because you had the flu. I wish you a speedy recovery. I just wanted to say that when someone posts here for the first time, it can be a very upheaving experience emotionally. As a result, it isn't uncommon to get a cold or otherwise feel ill, especially if you are still sorting out your own feelings, and finding peoples questions difficult, because you aren't sure of what the answers are, even for yourself. I hope you won't give up on us, though. I know lots of us are interested in what you have to say. In fact, I've been wondering, what was it really that made you want to post here in the firstplace? You were asked a lot of questions initialy (which is inevitable here, especially if you were very involved with M's organization), but I was wondering if there was something in particular that you wanted to address? Or were you just hoping to sort yourself out? This is a good place to do that, but it can be very intense at first. I was not very involved with the organization, I was on the fringe mostly for 20 years, but near the end I tried being on our local committee, which eventually made me really look at what was going on and decide I no longer wanted to be associated with it. While I do feel better for that, one doesn't just part company the guru after 20 years, and feel nothing. This whole forum thing can be really intense. There is a kind of learning curve involved, not just the mechanics of posting messages, but also of understanding how things work, of how to communicate in this medium of only words. People can't see each other, there are only the words, and sometimes people react very strongly to their own interpretation of words. They might attack your words, but if feels like they are attacking YOU, but in fact, they may not even know you, they just see the words, and react to them. Communicating here takes some getting used to. I find it helpful to just back off for a while, to just read or give it a break all together sometimes. It helps me keep it in perspective. I just hope you will come back when you are ready. The hardest part of the learning curve really is at the begining. It does get easier as you go long. Just take it at your own speed. Best Wishes, - Charles S.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 14:53:47 (GMT) From: Mike Finch Email: None To: Charles S and Kelly Subject: To Mike Finch: Hope you are feeling better... Message:

Charles S writes: 'friend of yours posted here earlier that you were not posting because you had the flu. I wish you a speedy recovery.' Kelly writes: 'I really do hope you are feeling better.' Thanks to both of you - I have had some nasty bug, and have not been on the Forum for a few days. I have just skimmed through it and found this thread. Charles S writes 'In fact, I've been wondering, what was it really that made you want to post here in the firstplace? You were asked a lot of questions initialy (which is inevitable here, especially if you were very involved with M's organization), but I was wondering if there was something in particular that you wanted to address? Or were you just hoping to sort yourself out?' Sorting myself out is the answer. I guess I did come into the Forum with a bit of splash ('leading with the chin' as Jim said) with a clear-cut point of view - as far as this went I was not a premie, but I practised Knowledge, and as far as that went I was like this... and so on. Over the last few weeks, I have been fairly shaken AND stirred (James Bond joke !!) and the short answer is that I now am not sure where I stand. It is quite something to re-evaluate 30+ years of your life like this. Recently I thought that I could just bury myself in Knowledge and 'have that experience'. I don't think that is true any more. Charles S writes: 'I find it helpful to just back off for a while, to just read or give it a break all together sometimes.' I think this is good advice. Over the last few days I was forced to back off, but I think for the next few days, I will back off by choice. Kelly writes: 'I sense from some of your posts that you are still dealing with some fundamental issues, and that you are reluctant to take an extreme stance,and are naturally ambivalent to some of the viewpoints expressed here. Good....Take your time' That expresses my current view well. Charles S writes: 'I hope you won't give up on us, though. I know lots of us are interested in what you have to say' Thanks again. No, I won't give up on this - it is much too important. But this is heavy stuff, and I need to come to terms with some of it privately I think, or at least away from the glare of the publicity on this Forum. -- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 13:32:49 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Mike Finch Subject: Welcome back to the Madhouse Mike. Message:

Hi Mike, Welcome back. You've shown plenty of courage and honesty with your answers and interaction here Mike. Thanks for that. I'm glad my post, 'The Dirt on Mike Finch' went inactive before you got back. Don't bother looking for it, there's nothing there that would interest you. It's just boring science stuff. Anth the fingers crossed behind his back, typing with his nose.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 15:21:46 (GMT) From: Mike Finch Email: None To: AJW Subject: Welcome back to the Madhouse Mike. Message:

Anth writes: I'm glad my post, 'The Dirt on Mike Finch' went inactive before you got back. Don't bother looking for it, there's nothing there that would interest you. It's just boring science stuff.' Unfortunately for you Anth, a number of well-wishers sent it on to me, so not only did I read it, but I now have it saved ! -- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 21:12:10 (GMT) From: Kelly Email: None To: Mike Finch Subject: To Mike Finch: Hope you are feeling better... Message:

Hi Mike, This is going to have to be quick because we're going inactive any second!!! I am still trying to find some balance. I need time on my own to really process my own private personal reactions to my new perspective and all the new information provided by this site and forum. But I also need to read here for sheer inspiration... I am astonished by the high calibre of the contributions here. But ,there's another dimension, and that is the, at first challenging, but as time goes on, thoroughly rewarding process of engaging with these people. It's good company...It's the company of truth...Well mostly! Allthe best to you. Do you fancy meeting up with some of us at the Latvian night? If so contact Anth or marianne for details. Love Kelly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 19:27:31 (GMT) From: Charles S Email: bctanda@hotmail.com To: Mike Finch Subject: To Mike Finch:feeling better... Message:

Mike said: ''It is quite something to re-evaluate 30+ years of your life like this.'' Indeed! It's no small thing! It puts you through big changes mentally, which is why many of us get colds or flu when it happens. You also began posting here with your real name. I can appreciate what a big step that was to take. I look forward to hearing more from you when you are ready. In the meantime, many of us here would be willing to talk with you via email if that would help. I can understand your reluctance to post publicly while you still feel you have so much to sort out. Time will help you there. Thanks for perservering with us. Feeling better, or at least wanting to feel better, is what posting here is all about ultimately. In the process you may go through a lot, but come out better for it in the end.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 18:18:23 (GMT) From: Pat Conlon Email: None To: Mike Finch Subject: To Mike Finch: I'm glad you are feeling better Message:

Many of us came onto FV ''leading with the chin.'' My first post was I am not an ex-premie. I am an un-premie.'' The first of many bricks were thrown at me and it got worse when I went on a drunken rampage insulting exes left and right. You actually made a fairly modest entrance compared with some of us and also made a good impression. I look forward to hearing more from you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 23:11:24 (GMT) From: Kelly Email: None To: Charles S Subject: To Mike Finch: Hope you are feeling better... Message:

Hello Mike Finch, We don't really know each other, but I remember you from the roof of Prem Nagar in 1971. I really do hope you are feeling better. I'm not sure where you are at in your journey away from the cult, I sense from some of your posts that you are still dealing with some fundamental issues, and that you are reluctant to take an extreme stance,and are naturally ambivalent to some of the viewpoints expressed here. Good....Take your time...don't be rattled by some of the vultures here, I am absolutely sure you have a unique perspective on this....the problem is 'How to present it?' and 'What will they do with it? I have been a little shocked at how they, the extreme forumites, (sounds like a nasty type of rodent!!) leap upon a new morsel, and shake it and rattle it and swallow it and regurgitate it. I don't think the search for new titbits of information is a healthy approach. So, don't worry, the main thing we are doing here is helping and supporting each other to process the whole cult dependency delusion we are all going through. By the way, you and I share a page in the 25th anniversary 'Divine Times' Love Kelly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 16:58:47 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: delores@gofree.indigo.ie To: Kelly Subject: Gulp -- 25th anniversary Divine Times? Message:

This is another post where I go, No, No, say it's not true! There is no 25th Anniversary Divine Times -- is there? Larf, barf, larf, barf.... Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 20:49:31 (GMT) From: Kelly Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Gulp -- 25th anniversary Divine Times? Watch out Message:

for the 30th!!! This year right? Actually that post to Mike included me revealing my true identity, but you need to have a copy!! I'll give you one when we meet! You'll recognise me because I'll be wearing a red carnation in my button hole and I'll be carrying a copy of the Divine Times! Enigmatically yours Kelly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 23:15:55 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: delores@gofree.indigo.ie To: Kelly Subject: But will yoube wearing patchouli oil? Message:

The true test!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 23:51:53 (GMT) From: Kelly Email: None To: Marianne Subject: patchouli oil? you gotta be kidding right? Message:

I always hated the stuff. If you're fresh off the plane from Cork I think your sense of smell will be pretty well shot. So my subtle and exquisite new perfume will be quite lost on you. Never mind. But what will you be wearing? Eau de Lingus? Love Kelly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 11:56:54 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Kelly Subject: Eau de Lingus? Message:

That sounds like something I say to my husband in the middle of the night! The lads had better watch out for us. You are very wild. I am quite tame. Ask Anth and Nigel. But I am easily influenced by someone like you. hahahaha Love, Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:53:27 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Defining truth and all that (continued) Message:

Well the jury's in, my client acquitted of all charges, and I'm back to argue about the truth. Mike: Before we go any further, would you please answer the following: 1) Do you believe that words have definitions? 2) Do you generally accept dictionary definitions? If not, why? And if not, and you DO believe in definitions, where would you find them if not dictionaries? 3) If 1's a 'yes', how woudl you define 'truth'? 'Assessment'? And whatever the other one was, how would you define that? 4) Do you think that your definitions of these words are special definitions or do you think that you're using the words in their common, if proper, sense? If your definitions ARE special, where'd you get them and why? Dog: I guess I'd ask you some of the same questions. Do you think that words have definitions? Where would you look for them, if you do? Like that ..... Scott: oops! Same questions.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 00:48:29 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Been away, sorry. Message:

Jim: Sorry, been away. Got a new toy and I've been outside in this balmy 70 degree February weather enjoying it. 1) Do you believe that words have definitions? See, I have to sort of read between the lines here to decide what you mean. Yes, I believe in definitions. What do you *mean* by 'definition?' To me it implies boundaries regarding what is and is not included or excluded and the point is that, at the margins, those boundaries can be *very* hard to come by. So, if we're not *at* the margins then who gives a shit? And if we are, we'll need to go a bit further than the dictionary. Do you know the difference between a word and a term? 2) Do you generally accept dictionary definitions? If not, why? And if not, and you DO believe in definitions, where would you find them if not dictionaries? I generally accept dictionary definitions, but if the meaning or context are non-problematic then so what? Any concerted effort to get at the truth will reveal how woefully inadequate dictionary definitions, which come from 'natural language,' really are. So we can use the dictionary definitions as a starting point, and then define terms for a particular discussion by agreement. We'll probably still screw up, but at least we'll be more likely to know we're screwing up. 3) If 1's a 'yes', how woudl you define 'truth'? 'Assessment'? And whatever the other one was, how would you define that? *We'd* have to define it, since *we* are engaged in the discussion. Generalizing from that discussion might be problematic because others won't have participated in the process. I'm not going to attempt to define the terms yet because we need to hash it out a bit first, and because I'm pumped full of endorphins from the last 24 hours so I can't think. 4) Do you think that your definitions of these words are special definitions or do you think that you're using the words in their common, if proper, sense? If your definitions ARE special, where'd you get them and why? I think this question, and part of the last, are really directed at Michael... who is steeped in Heidegger. I'm sort of an Habermasian so I'll take a different approach. We have an innate *capacity* to understand language, exemplified by the fact that we all learn an original language that's sufficiently clear to carry on most of life's tasks. We can *learn* other languages based on that innate capacity. So, we can negotiate about meanings and implications of words and concepts without either party surrendering unconditionally to the other, provided the process is either transparent... or we have a means of 'seeing through' the opacity of another. I think Michael's rule book is a way of doing that. No one is paying us, and there are no deliverables, so why not experiment to see what we can find? --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 15:01:09 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Jim Subject: Now we're getting somewhere Message:

Jim, Down below you ask, I mean, really, Mike, what's the big deal about any of this? I don't get it. My point has to do with each of us taking responsibility for the stands we take in life. One such stand has to do with how we speak about Truth (with a capital T as Deputy Dog likes to point out). Webster’s dictionary defines Truth with the capital T as “a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one (often with the ). Now, the problem with this definition (I prefer interpretation) is that it implies that there is this objective reality called “Truth” somewhere out there in the world and that some people have got it, or understand it, or have tapped into it, and others have not. Premies are especially prone to speak as though they have “experienced” it, that Maharaji has “revealed” it and that Maharaji is the “source” of it. Now what exactly is this “it” to which they refer? Some call it “Knowledge” with a capital K, others, like Turner and Dog, also call it the Truth with a capital T, and still others simply call it a feeling or an experience. Whatever they call “it”, there is this implication that “it” exists independent of their experience of it and independent of their speaking about it – that this “it” exists as an independent reality. My claim is that no such independent reality exists. I am not saying that people are not having an “experience” of something. Whatever they are experiencing, however, is unique to them and I am insisting that they own it as their experience and not claim that their experience is some kind of universal truth or reality that exists independent of the experience they are having. I am being rigorous about this point because, if someone claims that they possess the Truth and that this Truth exists independently of their speaking about it, there are only two responses I can have when presented with this universal reality and that is to reject it, or to “surrender” to it, and “obey” the person who claims to own it. After all we’re talking about the Truth with a capital T. That is why I find Austin’s Speech Act theory to be helpful when thinking about our concepts of reality in general and, in this case, the phenomenon people refer to as the Truth. In Austin’s ontology, whatever people have to say about the Truth would be interpreted as their assessment or their opinion. They are free to have whatever experience they are having, but they must claim it as their own, and take responsibility for whatever claims they are making. Instead, most people speak about the Truth as though they were making an assertion, or a statement of fact. In this case, they don’t have to own the claims they are making about the Truth because they live in the belief that the Truth about which they are speaking exists independently of them. They are merely reporters or endorsers of an independent reality. That's my point Jim. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 21:06:03 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Classic example:Experience god with brain magnets Message:

Re 'the' truth. Great experiement, University of Oregon, I think it was there, couple of years back. Magnets placed over peoples brains and even atheists had experiences of cosmic consciousness, some even experienced the 'presence' of god. As soon as the magnets were removed, so the experiences stopped. So how could one ever be certain that an experience of a transcendental source is 'actual', not possible. Another classic example is that dmt, along with other powerful psychedelics, which are naturally produced by our bodies, regularly produce cosmic consciousness experiences. How cold anyone be certain they hadn't just triggered their own psychedelics, they couldn't. There are any number of angles to show that this certainty is always questionable, doesn't disprove the certainty, but how anyone who wasn't acting in bad faith could still have those 'certainty' beliefs, without qualifiers, once they knew the way the brain works, is an impossibility.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 18:19:17 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Now we're getting somewhere Message:

Hi, Michael, I think I understand your point, though it's a difficult one to get across with all this talk of assessment and assertion. As Jim pointed out, people can assert all kinds of untruths, as well as assess the truth; that's truth with a small 't'. I agree with you that THE TRUTH can only be a personal assessment, if we're talking about an experience, such as Knowledge, which can only be subjective. I've had Knowledge for 20 years, and I'll still be damned if the experience I have in meditation is the same as your's or anybody else's, including Maharaji's. When one looks within, it has to be admitted that what's seen there is a personal truth, and while it can be asserted that what I feel within me is my truth which you may or may not believe, I can't say that I've discovered the universal truth, because the fact remains that what I experience within is subject to my own personal state of mind, and exists only so long as that state of mind does. I guess the question that remains is, is it possible for a person to aquire a state of mind that puts him in touch with absolute truth, a truth that exists of it's own irregardless of state of mind, or which is even contingent upon one's existence? I don't think so, simply because it's been shown that all experience is dependent upon a personal reference which is rooted in the fickleness of brain chemistry. Mess with that and truth simply becomes a matter of what types of neurotransmitters are active in the brain, what parts of it, and in what doses. Reality (that's Reality with a capital 'R') is pretty hard to come by (if such a thing exists) for a species that is boxed in by it's own subjective physiology and the state it's in.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 18:36:52 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Et tu, Jerry? Message:

When one looks within, it has to be admitted that what's seen there is a personal truth, and while it can be asserted that what I feel within me is my truth which you may or may not believe, I can't say that I've discovered the universal truth, because the fact remains that what I experience within is subject to my own personal state of mind, and exists only so long as that state of mind does. 'A personal truth'? 'My truth'? What do these mean in english? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 22:21:08 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Not entirely Message:

Jim, I'm just speaking in reference to Knowledge, where everything is about an inner experience. You can't say that you've found THE truth by practicing Knowledge. You've just found what's within, whatever that is. It's a reality that only the one experiencing it is privy to. It's 'your truth', not mine. Another thing, if all experience is subjective, which it is, and even science bares this out, then the truth of that experience would have to be subjective as well. I can understand your disdain for new age talk about 'my truth' insofar as it's rooted in ignorance, but for those educated in the cause of experience, there's a whole new light shed on the term.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 17:44:53 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Now we're getting somewhere Message:

My point has to do with each of us taking responsibility for the stands we take in life. One such stand has to do with how we speak about Truth (with a capital T as Deputy Dog likes to point out). Webster’s dictionary defines Truth with the capital T as “a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one (often with the ). Yes but, like I said yesterday, I think that that particular definition is a mere nod to an idiom. It's saying that sometimes we'll call something 'the truth' even when we might, in fact, be wrong. Now, the problem with this definition (I prefer interpretation) is that it implies that there is this objective reality called “Truth” somewhere out there in the world and that some people have got it, or understand it, or have tapped into it, and others have not. Well, I agree that it implies that there is an objective reality. However, I don't see where it goes so far as to suggest that anyone has 'got', understands or has 'tapped into' that reality. Where does it say that? Premies are especially prone to speak as though they have “experienced” it, that Maharaji has “revealed” it and that Maharaji is the “source” of it. Yes, that's true. Now what exactly is this “it” to which they refer? Well, as far as I can tell, the 'it' is something they're imagining and which they falsely call 'the Truth'. It's a misuse of the term, quite frankly. The definition of the word does not include so-called 'cosmic consciousness' which is what Maharaji and the premies are talking about. But what's this about prefering the word 'interpretation' over 'definition'? Is there something wrong with the concept of 'definition' meaning the meaning of a word? What? And how would you define 'interpretation' in this context? Some call it “Knowledge” with a capital K, others, like Turner and Dog, also call it the Truth with a capital T, and still others simply call it a feeling or an experience. Whatever they call “it”, there is this implication that “it” exists independent of their experience of it and independent of their speaking about it – that this “it” exists as an independent reality. My claim is that no such independent reality exists. Well I say that there is indeed an independent reality, however that has nothing to do with whether premies have some special 'experience' of it. That part I think is bullshit. But whether or not there actually is an independent reality is another matter altogether. I am not saying that people are not having an “experience” of something. Whatever they are experiencing, however, is unique to them and I am insisting that they own it as their experience and not claim that their experience is some kind of universal truth or reality that exists independent of the experience they are having. Sorry to seem like a pest about this but I have to say I don't know what 'own' means, for one thing. Could you explain please? It's always struck me as a puff of fog, that one. Maybe it means something clear to you but it sure doesn't to me. Otherwise, I understand premies to refer to the thing they think they're experiencing as 'reality' (I've already said why I think it's wrong to substitute the word 'truth') on the basis that they think they're experiencing something more constant than this supposedly ever-shifting, illusory plane. Yeah, if that were true, I could see how such a space would deserve to be called 'reality' in that, arguably, it exists at some more permanent, absolute level. However, I don't think there is such a plane of existence to begin with and, if you really wanted to be accurate about it, you'd have to include all the more transient levels of 'reality', I guess, as being every bit as 'real' as the supposedly 'deeper' stuff. That is, who said anything about 'reality' implying permanence? I am being rigorous about this point because, if someone claims that they possess the Truth and that this Truth exists independently of their speaking about it, there are only two responses I can have when presented with this universal reality and that is to reject it, or to “surrender” to it, and “obey” the person who claims to own it. After all we’re talking about the Truth with a capital T. If someone tells me they 'possess the Truth' I would only accept that statement as being meaningful to the extent that they were talking about being able to articulate true observations about the world. I wouldn't accept that kind of talk in the 'cosmic sense', like the way Dog is using it, because, like I said, I think that's a misuse of the language. So, rather than rejecting or surrendering to the claim (and, for some reason, obeying the claimant), I'd just say 'talk english, please'. That is why I find Austin’s Speech Act theory to be helpful when thinking about our concepts of reality in general and, in this case, the phenomenon people refer to as the Truth. In Austin’s ontology, whatever people have to say about the Truth would be interpreted as their assessment or their opinion. They are free to have whatever experience they are having, but they must claim it as their own, and take responsibility for whatever claims they are making. It's too bad that you cut short our dialogue below about all this terminology by suggesting that we just 'agree to disagree' because here is where I'd really like some answers. Perhaps you'd consider going further with me here. Not only do I still not understand (and thus don't accept -- yet) your apparently special use of the term 'assessment', I also don't know what you mean by either 'claim it as their own' or 'take responsibility for ......' I think that especially in this particular discussion, which is all about proper use of language (and, I think, the philosophical implications of how we talk), it's not asking too much to request that you spell out everything that might not be patently clear on its own. In my opinion, those terms qualify. Instead, most people speak about the Truth as though they were making an assertion, or a statement of fact. Hm, I think it's safer to say that most people speak about the Truth as though they were assuming that there is a truth to be known, whether or not they, or anyone, for that matter, knows it. In this case, they don’t have to own the claims they are making about the Truth because they live in the belief that the Truth about which they are speaking exists independently of them. They are merely reporters or endorsers of an independent reality. Okay, as I said before, I need you to spell out what 'owning the claims' means here to be able to properly consider this statement. But, if I get your drift as I think I do, I don't see a problem. There IS a reality, independent of our beliefs, and sometimes we're more accurate than others when we try to describe it. I mean, if that's not true, what could ever be? Jim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 20:39:55 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Jim Subject: Good questions Message:

Jim, I don’t consider you to be a pest so I will do my best to answer your questions. You say that “not only do I still not understand (and thus don't accept -- yet) your apparently special use of the term 'assessment', I also don't know what you mean by either 'claim it as their own' or 'take responsibility for ...” Let me offer the premise upon which I base my claim. We human beings live in language. Therefore, I claim that, for human beings, reality is based in language. We observe whatever we observe according to our traditions, our distinctions, and our concerns. These are all linguistic phenomena. For example, without the distinction 'table,' I cannot observe a table. I may see an object with differences in color, shape and texture etc., but not a table. It is important, therefore, to see our distinctions as distinctions and not just as names that things have. Things don't have names. We, as linguistic beings, give them names. And the process of giving them names often constitutes them as things. By making distinctions, we specify the units and entities that populate our world. We cannot observe something for which we don't have a distinction. This is why I say that we see with our eyes, but we observe with our distinctions. People with different sets of distinctions live in different worlds. Given this premise, I claim that, for human beings, there is no such thing as a reality independent of language. Let me make this point clear. I am not saying that there is no reality beyond language. I am not denying the existence of an external reality. What I am saying is that about that reality we know nothing, since all knowledge itself is completely linguistic. Reality always shows up within a 'linguistic clearing.' Language is not just a mere description of reality - a passive picture of something already existent. Language is action. When we speak we act. By saying something we can generate new realities. That is why I reject the notion of an independent reality that supposedly represents a universal Truth with a capital T. Whatever truth we are experiencing, it is “our” truth, not some universal truth that exists independent of my interpretation of it. I realize that what I am saying flies in the face of the historical traditions that we Western beings have inherited from the Greeks and now embody as a collective common sense about the nature of reality. Yet, this common sense way of thinking is no longer serving us. It produces blindness, arrogance and intolerance. We need look no further that the Middle East to see the consequences that result when two different realities clash. The conflict appears irreconcilable because each party is clinging to a Truth which they claim is not their “interpretation” of reality, but the Truth as specified by God himself (herself). In other words, they are not defending and therefore “owning” a particular interpretation that they invented, but rather each party is defending a Truth that they claim exists in and of itself. I have found Austin’s Speech Act theory to be helpful in breaking this historical way of thinking and speaking about reality, hence my reason for introducing the distinction between an assessment and an assertion. If I can grasp that whatever truth I claim to be experiencing is “my” truth and not some truth that exists independently of me, then I am “owning” or taking responsibility for my interpretation, and not abdicating responsibility to reality itself. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:35:02 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Good questions Message:

Michael, Jim, et al: I think I'm more or less caught up with the conversation, and even though I'd like to be grinding the pedals I'll join in. It's getting chilly anyway. To me, much of what you've said so far is contained in the following sentence: People with different sets of distinctions live in different worlds. That's the heart of it. To the extent that's true *real* communication is impossible. But we exist somewhere between speechless union and speechless alienation. Furthermore, we share a common universal capacity... the innate ability to understand language. Thus, we have a basis for unifying our worlds though we have no guarantee. There is no truth independent of language that's 'downwardly incompatible' with language, but there *must* be a truth independent of language in an 'upwardly compatible' sense unless it coincides with language at all points. In other words, since the capacity for language must precede language itself (or history would devolve to a single point with no meaning) we have an adequate, if not always facile, bridge between worlds. (This is basically the Habermasian position in Truth and Method.) At this point intent comes into the picture because just as words or terms don't possess universal meanings, we are also capable of hiding our intent from others. Given that, it's imperative that no one participating in a discussion about 'fundamental truth claims' be able to keep their intent hidden indefinitely either from others or from themselves. I think this goes to what you're saying about the difference between assertion and assessment. However, this condition isn't easy to meet and your rulebook may not be 100% adequate. Given this premise, I claim that, for human beings, there is no such thing as a reality independent of language. Let me make this point clear. I am not saying that there is no reality beyond language. I am not denying the existence of an external reality. What I am saying is that about that reality we know nothing, since all knowledge itself is completely linguistic. I'm not sure I'm with you here. At some point we have to at least touch a capacity, or 'reality' that's beyond language or we wouldn't have language in the first place. It may be very difficult to travel back up that path, but it must be there. That is why I reject the notion of an independent reality that supposedly represents a universal Truth with a capital T. Whatever truth we are experiencing, it is “our” truth, not some universal truth that exists independent of my interpretation of it. I find the notion of 'truth claims' more useful. Truth claims need not always be about objective 'facts' but can also be about subjective states, honesty, correct form, etc. The conflict appears irreconcilable because each party is clinging to a Truth which they claim is not their “interpretation” of reality, but the Truth as specified by God himself (herself). In other words, they are not defending and therefore “owning” a particular interpretation that they invented, but rather each party is defending a Truth that they claim exists in and of itself. It's possible that we are dealing with a range of truth claims here, about the forthrightness and honesty of all the players, about their 'true diligence' in pursuit of truth, about their commitment, etc. That is, we may be able to salvage something of the enlightenment project by expanding the notion of a truth claim into subjective and social areas and creating a set of criteria for making judgments. Although this is difficult, I submit that it may actually be easier to achieve than your 'ownership' condition. I'm not certain, however. I'm willing to entertain the notion of ownership, at least as a way of getting at transparent intent. But I'm a little uneasy with it, and don't want to put all my eggs in that basket. And now I'm going to go play with my toys. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 23:08:36 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Good questions Message:

I realize that what I am saying flies in the face of the historical traditions that we Western beings have inherited from the Greeks and now embody as a collective common sense about the nature of reality. That's changing, Michael, especially in light of all that's been discovered in recent research into brain chemistry. To the modern day philosopher, things don't look so objective as they once did. The interconnection between the observed and the observer can no longer be denied. And it's not just because of language, either. It's because of the way our brains manifest experience through an interpretation of light coming into our eyes, waves of air pressure striking our ears, and molecules entering our noses. The world is not the way it appears, and it only appears as it does because that's the way we evolved to 'observe' it. For more about this, see hamzen's post above titled 'Classic example'. It's a good one of how it's proven that reality is very definitely a subjective experience.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 21:31:33 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Not that rare really Message:

Have you checked out any cybernetic/systems theory at all, Maturana and Varela found themselves taking a similar stance having started from a biological modelling? The route you're taking is not that rare, because in the final analysis it's impossible to measure reality totally mathematically, as well define totally in language. It's also quite a standard route in philosophy I think, although I'm not so informed in that area, but aren't we back in the infinite regression problem Scott was mentioning the other day. The one problem that I have with your stance, the same as I did around nlp'ers, is from a couple of angles. It can minimize fuzzy definitions that are useful, ie that's just 'your' reality, and it can be used as a way of distancing and neutralising 'others', I've come across plenty of instances where this reality model, mixed with bad faith, can be quite destructive. I suspect one of the reasons Jim is so wary of this 'fuzzy' reality model, is precisely because so many new agers use it as a cover once they've realized they can no longer get away with the certainty number, especially if they mix it in with a sloppy use of language, it becomes a good cover for old school certainty hiding behimnd new school science, rather creepy really.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 07:57:51 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: hamzen Subject: Not that rare really Message:

hamzen, I studied with Maturana and Verela as well as with Flores, Dreyfus and Searle. Your point is well taken. Varela has been a valued contributor to the scenario planning model pioneered by Royal Dutch Shell and now used by many global corporations. The way they mitigate the pitfalls of engaging in a 'fuzzy' reality model or the “sloppy use of language” is to practice the discipline of 'grounding' their assessments. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 03:14:14 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: ham@hamzen.fsnet.co.uk To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Maturana/Varela enabled me to break from gm Message:

I owe them a lot really, after getting into systems through frijtof capra, starting reading the real stuff and realized capra was reading way too much mystical stuff into it all, like wilber & the esalen crowd. Maturana and Varela enabled me to intellectually ground a lot of the doubts I had about gm, but more importantly my experiences while meditating, which were always really strong, but were riddled with some dodgy/fluffy concepts.. Maturana, always struck me as a bit of a ham, only seen a small video of him, but in question & answer sessions he comes over like that. But his academic systems stuff is brilliant I think, if a bit jargony as Jim points out, but Varela, he always struck me as really honest, and not at all self-satisfied. Is he like that in real life? What are the processes they use for grounding assessments? Flores always struck me as a bit of a huckster, very sharp, but don't turn your back. He reminds me of a few people I've met from the balkans. They were all around during the turmoil in chile right? The other two I know nothing of. Could you give us the background to varela's work with shell, any official title so I can do a search on the net? Any contact with Stafford Beer, if he's even still alive? Used checklands SSM at all? Thanks for that Michael, never thought I'd meet anyone here who knew about their work, feels kinda odd for me, almost like closing a circle (excuse the self-referential pun) because they were SO instrumental in me finding the intellectual courage to break free of you know who.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 16:07:45 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: hamzen Subject: Maturana/Varela enabled me to break from gm Message:

hamzen, I have had the pleasure of working directly with Maturana and Varela. I find them both to be very solid academically as well a very humble and self-effacing in person. Maturana’s best book, in my opinion is The Tree Of Knowledge. Varela is a practicing Buddhist and an advisor to the Dalai Llama. His work with Shell is discussed in a book by Joseph Jaworski entitled Synchronicity. In addition to co-authoring the Tree of Knowledge with Maturana, you may enjoy Varela’s The Embodied Mind – Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Herbert L. Dreyfus is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. His latest book Being-in-the-World is a commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time. John Searle is also a Professor at Berkeley and is recognized as the leading exponent of Austin’s Speech Act Theory to which I have referred. I will address your comments about Fernando Flores in my further response to Cynthia and Jim, also a part of this thread. I have discussed the process of grounding assessments in one of my responses somewhere in this thread. If you can’t find it, or if it moves into the archives before you get a chance to look for it, e-mail me at the above address and I will re-send it to you. I am not familiar with Stafford Beer. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 00:25:10 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Flores.....To Michael... Message:

Hello Michael, In 1989 I was employed by an architect here in Vermont. He sent me to one of Flores' workshops. It was a horrid, cultish, abusive experience and it was ''sold'' to me by my employer as a workshop for professional administrators. It was and is a cult. I know Flores' history. So what? He may be a great intellect, but he sure has made A LOT of money on his followers. In the workshops there I heard cult-speak (1st red flag), and was told I didn't understand when I objected or disagreed. Those who disagreed with what the workshop leader said was humiliated on stage until they gave in or left. When being recruited to take the $5,000-$10,000 intranet courses they offered, still working for the architect, I was again told that I couldn't know the ''experience'' of learning linguistically unless I first sprung for some courses. I told them to shove it. The real red flag was one day when Fernando Flores arrived in Boston (3 hours from here) and my boss and wife dropped everthing and left to go see him. Just like with Maharaji. It was a cult. It was creepy. Glad I didn't pay for the workshop. Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:02:52 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Cynthia Subject: Flores..... To Michael... Message:

Cynthia, As I indicated in my post, I have studied and continue to study with a lot of different people. Flores was one of them. Having spent so many years of my life in Maharaji’s cult I, too, am sensitive to anything that smells like a cult. I am clear that I no longer need or want a leader/teacher to follow or surrender to. I am only interested in collaborating with others whether in business projects or in learning situations. Congratulations on being true to yourself and not doing anything that would rob you of your dignity and self-respect. I certainly hold that same standard for myself. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 17:18:49 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Flores..... To Michael... Message:

Dear Michael, Thanks for your response. I didn't think you are at risk for joinging another cult, believe me. And I do know we can learn things from everyone. We sure learned a lot from Maharaji... Best, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:22:27 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Care to try again, Mike? Message:

Hm ..... that's a bit of a side-step, wouldn't you say, Mike? What do you think of Cynthia's opinion about the guy? I mean, you can either agree or disagree or whatever. Thing is, you haven't said.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 16:02:50 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Jim Subject: Care to try again, Mike? Message:

Jim, I respect Cynthia’s right to her opinion and I acknowledged her integrity for acting consistently with her experience. I have a different opinion of Dr. Fernando Flores since I know him personally. I engaged him to help me build Dettmers Industries into a successful and award winning company, two goals my partners and I achieved with his help. Although I recognized his mastery in the ontology of language and its application in organizational design and development, I did not look up to him as a guru, but rather as a partner and collaborator. Whatever fees I paid for his services, and he is not cheap, have come back to me tenfold, not only when we sold Dettmers Industries, but also in fees I now charge my clients using, in part, his methodology. In case you are interested in his background, in 1970, at the age of 29 he was named Chile’s Minister of Economics. Later he became the Minister of Finance under Salvador Allende as they attempted to move the country from dictatorship to democracy. Flores was an active opponent of Pinochet’s fascist regime and he was jailed and threatened with execution before he was eventually freed by Amnesty International. In 1976 he came to the USA where he earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley by synthesizing the fields of the philosophy of Language, computing, operations research and management. His dissertation Communication and Management in the Office of the Future and his book Understanding Computers and Cognition explain this synthesis. EST founder Werner Erhard heard about what Flores was working on and offered him a grant. In return, Erhard incorporated Flores’ ideas into EST. In time however, Flores became concerned about the direction in which Erhard was moving and broke with him. I’m sure that it was Flores connection with EST that made some people think that he was running a cult. In any case, not too long after his break with Erhard, Flores and his ex-EST associates stopped doing workshops all together. Flores saw much more potential for the development of his ideas as well as financial remuneration as a consultant to global corporations. He disbanded his training and workshop company called Logonet in 1990 and formed Business Design Associates. If you want to get a better idea of his methodology you can read his latest book entitled Disclosing New Worlds: Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity. You may also wish to get hold of an article about Flores in the January 1999 issue of Fast Company entitled The Power of Words. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 17:32:57 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: est is now called the Forum . . . Message:

. . . and I recommend it to everyone. Werner Erhard still runs the Forum, although after the damaging '6O Minutes' expose he keeps a low profile. Est was very zen in its approach to the limitations of language and Erhard made a clear distinction between Self and Mind. Similar to the one made by Hubbard between Thetan and Mind. More specifically Hubbard called it the 'Reactive Mind.' The point of both Hubbard and Erhard (both de facto Buddhists) is that we are not our recordings (facsimiles). We have a mind and we are not our mind. We are a spirit, operating a body, using a mind.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 21:48:07 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: delores@gofree.indigo.ie To: hamzen Subject: What's your email? Message:

Sorry. I have deleted it twice. I am lashing myself as we speak.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 21:52:57 (GMT) From: dj cuttlefish/ham Email: ham@hamzen.fsnet.co.uk To: Marianne Subject: You trying to get me hot and bothered marianne!! Message:

a

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 20:34:56 (GMT) From: dj cuttlefish Email: None To: Jim Subject: Now we're getting somewhere Message:

'But, if I get your drift as I think I do, I don't see a problem. There IS a reality, independent of our beliefs, and sometimes we're more accurate than others when we try to describe it. I mean, if that's not true, what could ever be?' So could you tell me exactly where this reality is Jim? Since everybody's experience of reality is unique, there can never be a total 'one' reality, whether scientific or religious/spiritual. I suspect you will say that it should be verifiable by scientific experiment, so where exactly do you draw the line on 'physical' reality. When you break down reality, magnify it say, at some point you find our viewing and measuring actually alters that reality. But this doesn't mean we're left with nothing, it just means there are qualifiers that need to be in place, after that it's about consensual agreement. In the end it's about mapping and whether those maps are perceived as useful/socially acceptable. Even at the level of 9-5 'physical' reality it's easy to show how liquid it can be, since to reiterate my first point, reality means nothing independent of people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:46:39 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Jim and Michael Subject: Defining truth and all that (continued) Message:

1) Do you believe that words have definitions? No of course not! I figure I should be able to walk into any restaurant an order an elephant-umbrella pie and assume the server knows I want a cup of coffee. When I walk into work in the morning I should be able to say ZEEP! ZEEEP! and assume that my colleagues know I'm saying 'Good Morning.' I figure if I keep this up for a couple of months I'll eventually be taken into custody. Such is the power of agreement reality. Words are agreements by the way. That's agreement reality. We have to agree that the sound 'DOG' or the words d-o-g mean a furry creature that walks on all fours. 2) Do you generally accept dictionary definitions? If not, why? And if not, and you DO believe in definitions, where would you find them if not dictionaries? Definitely not! I figure I should be able to make up my own words and assume people know what I'm talking about. I should be able to go to remore areas of China and speak English and expect no difficulties. 3) If 1's a 'yes', how woudl you define 'truth' 'Assessment'? And whatever the other one was, how would you define that? Intuitive validity! That's what meditation is about. Sitting perfectly still, the body is silent, there is no internal dialogue, no running commentary, silence of mind. NO WORDS! The Buddha called this the Noble Silence. Thinking STOPS. There are no words! Meditation practice has been the focus of every religion, but because it takes place in silence alone, it's always been set aside in favour of other practices like preaching or singing. 4) Do you think that your definitions of these words are special definitions or do you think that you're using the words in their common, if proper, sense? If your definitions ARE special, where'd you get them and why? When it comes right down to it words are either little noises or squiggly lines. They are the menu not the meal. The next time you're thirsty write the word w-a-t-e-r on a piece of paper try drinking it. By the way I always keep a photograph of the sun in my wallet so when I get caught in the dark I can always take it out and use as a flashlight. The meanings of words are even by how they are said. I could say, 'You son of a bitch,' with a low voice and a grin on my face, or I could say it loudly with an angry look. The meaning would change. Truth with a capital 'T' existed before language. Our story gets built and we get trapped in it!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:17:27 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Your sarcasm belies some good, honest confusion Message:

Dog, Pity you chose to just play with the questions rather than answer them. I guess you can never get 'trapped' that way, huh? Too bad. Too bad for you, that is. If you can't be wrong, you can't be right. You're just floating in ... in what? Who knows? A feeling, maybe? Okay, but what of all your thoughts? How can you ever exert any quality control this way? Fact is, you can't and your inability to discriminate on the spiritual fairy tale level proves that in spades.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:23:38 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Jim Subject: Honest confusion? Ha! Message:

Jim, I know you were raised Jewish, but do you know what 'Born of the Spirit' means? Do you know what they are talking about in Proverbs 16:32 when they say, 'He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that rules his Spirit than he that takes a city.' Do you know what the word Spirit means?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 04:31:46 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Some other thoughts on the matter Message:

I'm currently engaged in this book called 'The User Illusion'. It's a study of the limitations of consciousness, or things which get by it, but are important nonetheless. There's processing in deep recesses of the brain that we are oblivious to, yet we are controlled by them even so. Not only that, but they're the source of instinct, hunches, sneaking suspicions, and such. Trust your instincts; go with your gut feelings is the message of the book. But that's not what I really want to get into here. In one chapter, the author of the book talks at length about exformation vs. information. Exformation is what is omitted in the words we say yet is implied. When I say 'dog', an image appears in your mind of a 4 legged creature with a wagging tail, perhaps, but all of that exformation is implied, not outright spoken. The really wild example he gives of exformation is the story of Victor Hugo's correspondence with his book publisher. Shortly after his novel, Les Miserables was published, Hugo sent the following letter to his publisher: '?' His publisher, not to be outdone, replied: '!' The understanding they shared could not have been clearer if they had written each other at length. I guess if you can put this in context to what Jim is driving at is that words are important, perhaps, more for what they don't say, then for what they do. The key is in getting the message across, if in fact that's what you're interested in. But what I think many individuals do, maybe because they have no command of language, is they write off words as being an able conduit of communication. This isn't so. Words are great for doing this, and our brains would not have evolved to instinctively learn and execute language if this wasn't the case.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:57:13 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Some other thoughts on the matter Message:

To quote Ram Dass on this matter, 'The mind is an excellent servant but a lousy master.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 14:35:53 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Some other thoughts on the matter Message:

I wonder if there isn't a misunderstanding about 'mind' vs. 'heart'. Are the two really separate, or are they both part of the same brain, one just more evolved than the other? From what I've been able to gather our feelings (things of the 'heart') just originate in the more ancient part of our brain, and our cognitive abilities originate in that part which is most recently evolved. So, maybe in our ancestors' world, feelings played a more critical role in survival because their cognitive abilities hadn't yet evolved. But since their descendants (us), posess their brain with all it's feeling capabilities, along with a new outer shell (the cerebrum), which gives us new cognitive abilities, shouldn't we take advantage of that, perhaps celebrate it, instead of downplaying it? I'm not saying we should stop feeling. We can't; it's part of our nature. But so is thinking. Maybe what we need to do is integrate the two, place them in harmony with one another so as to avoid inner conflict, instead of placing one above the other which can't help but create that conflict, as well as reveal a lack of understanding as to who we really are, thinking and feeling creatures. If the 'mind' is a good servant, so too is the 'heart'. Neither are master. They both just exist to serve us. And who are we? Well, that is the question, isn't it :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:02:15 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Oh come off it with this Ram Dass shit, already Message:

This inability of you to escape spiritual cliches is tiresome, Dog. Can't you see it? Can't you see how that statement just invites unpacking? Yet you utter such tripe as if it really says something. What's next? 'Life is like a beanstock?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:16:14 (GMT) From: Pat Conlon Email: None To: Dog Subject: Oh come off it with this Ram Dass shit, already Message:

And to think that I called you Mahatma. Enough is enough. Richard Alpert boiled his brains out in hot-tubs in Marin County 20 years ago.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 01:11:58 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Then surely you should stay silent 'about' Message:

but you don't do you dog! For a buddhist methinx you need to go on a few more zen courses. What you call 'Truth', if it's anything like what I used to call 'one love reality', just as arguable it's a chemical experience interpreted as 'Truth'. But you know eh dog, and everyone else is stupid. The funny thing is, if you ever get a number of people together who assume they know the 'Truth', you can never get agreement on what they mean, curious really don't you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:41:58 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Jim Subject: Defining truth and all that (continued) Message:

Jim, First, let me congratulate you on your win. Now, let’s play. I will answer your questions and I have a few of my own for you. 1) Do you believe that words have definitions? Yes. 2) Do you generally accept dictionary definitions? Yes. 3) If 1's a 'yes', how would you define 'truth'? I accept my Webster’s dictionary definition of “truth” as: “the quality or state of being true; loyalty; trustworthiness; sincerity; genuineness; honesty; the quality of being in accordance with experience, facts, or reality; conformity with fact; reality; actual existence; agreement with a standard, rule; correctness; accuracy; that which is true; statement that accords with fact or reality; an established or verified fact or principal; a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one (often with the ). 4) Do you think that your definitions of these words are special definitions? No. Now, please answer the following questions: 1) Do you accept my Webster’s dictionary definition of “truth” above? 2) Do you accept that the same word, let’s say “truth” for example, may sometimes have different meanings, depending upon the context in which it is used? 3) In the above definition, Webster defines “truth” as “a statement that accords with fact.” Webster also defines “truth” as “a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one (often with the ).” Do you allow that, depending on the context in which it is used, those two definitions of “truth” are different or may address different concerns? Distinguishing “assessments” and “assertions” In developing his “Speech Act” theory, Austin makes a distinction between a speech act he calls “an assessment” and a speck act he calls “an assertion.” In his definition, an “assertion” is a statement of fact and, as such, it is either “true” or “false.” Therefore, the speaker who makes an assertion should be willing to provide evidence to prove that what he says is so. Austin defines “an assessment” as a speech act in which the speaker makes a judgment about something or offers an opinion. In this case, the speaker is not making a statement of fact but is simply offering an opinion. Even if the speaker is convicted in his opinion, he is not making a statement of fact. Let me offer a simple example to demonstrate the difference I am getting at. Suppose I make the following two statements: Bill is smart Bill is six feet tall. Grammatically, these statements are identical. Yet, in Austin’s ontology, the first statement is an “assessment” and the second statement is an “assertion.” I realize that some people may argue that “Bill is smart” is a statement of fact that is either “true” or “false.” Here’s why I disagree. When I say Bill is six feet tall, I can “observe” Bill and I can physically measure his height to prove whether or not he is six feet tall. If he is, then I have made a true assertion. If not, I have made a false assertion, which most people would call a lie. On the other hand, I cannot “observe” smart. Unlike a tree or a chair, smart exists only in language. What I can observe is Bill’s behavior and I may “assess” that it conforms to behavior I assess as smart. To do so, however, I would need to ground my assessment. This means that I would first have to specify a domain of concern. For instance, I may assess that Bill is smart in the domain of “physics” but not very smart in the domain of “fishing.” Next, I would have to establish my standards for smartness in the domain of physics. These standards may include an IQ of 200 or above, and a post doctorate degree from MIT. Given these standards, I can now make assertions about how Bill conforms or not to those standards. Thus, Bill may be assessed as smart by some and not so by others according to their respective standards. 4) Jim, do you accept the above distinctions between an “assessment” and an “assertion?” Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 03:59:59 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Defining truth and all that (continued) Message:

First, I've just got to say it, I'm plastered all over the news today. Front page headlines, TV interviews, radio, national press, the works. Okay, enough about that. You win some, you lose some. Nonetheless, it feels great. Now, please answer the following questions: 1) Do you accept my Webster’s dictionary definition of “truth” above? Sure. 2) Do you accept that the same word, let’s say “truth” for example, may sometimes have different meanings, depending upon the context in which it is used? Maybe. Depends what you mean by 'different'. Do you mean outside the boundaries of your dictionary definition? In that case, I'd say no. Not unless the word's changing, taking on new meaning that the dictionary guys ('lexigr-something-or-other-ers'?) haven't caught up with. 3) In the above definition, Webster defines “truth” as “a statement that accords with fact.” Webster also defines “truth” as “a particular belief or teaching regarded by the speaker as the true one (often with the ).” Do you allow that, depending on the context in which it is used, those two definitions of “truth” are different or may address different concerns? Yes. There is a blatant inconsistency here but I think it's explained by the fact that the second usage, the one where the speaker talks about the 'truth' of his message even when, in fact, he may be wrong,is only proper idiomatically. It's not really changing the meaning of 'truth' so much as acknowledging how people use the word, albeit incorrectly on close analysis. Distinguishing “assessments” and “assertions” In developing his “Speech Act” theory, Austin makes a distinction between a speech act he calls “an assessment” and a speck act he calls “an assertion.” In his definition, an “assertion” is a statement of fact and, as such, it is either “true” or “false.” Therefore, the speaker who makes an assertion should be willing to provide evidence to prove that what he says is so. Austin defines “an assessment” as a speech act in which the speaker makes a judgment about something or offers an opinion. In this case, the speaker is not making a statement of fact but is simply offering an opinion. Even if the speaker is convicted in his opinion, he is not making a statement of fact. Let me offer a simple example to demonstrate the difference I am getting at. Suppose I make the following two statements: Bill is smart Bill is six feet tall. Grammatically, these statements are identical. Yet, in Austin’s ontology, the first statement is an “assessment” and the second statement is an “assertion.” I realize that some people may argue that “Bill is smart” is a statement of fact that is either “true” or “false.” Here’s why I disagree. When I say Bill is six feet tall, I can “observe” Bill and I can physically measure his height to prove whether or not he is six feet tall. If he is, then I have made a true assertion. If not, I have made a false assertion, which most people would call a lie. On the other hand, I cannot “observe” smart. Unlike a tree or a chair, smart exists only in language. What I can observe is Bill’s behavior and I may “assess” that it conforms to behavior I assess as smart. To do so, however, I would need to ground my assessment. This means that I would first have to specify a domain of concern. For instance, I may assess that Bill is smart in the domain of “physics” but not very smart in the domain of “fishing.” Next, I would have to establish my standards for smartness in the domain of physics. These standards may include an IQ of 200 or above, and a post doctorate degree from MIT. Given these standards, I can now make assertions about how Bill conforms or not to those standards. Thus, Bill may be assessed as smart by some and not so by others according to their respective standards. 4) Jim, do you accept the above distinctions between an “assessment” and an “assertion?” No.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 13:32:11 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Jim Subject: Defining truth and all that (continued) Message:

Jim, OK, so we agree to disagree about Austin's Speech Act Theory. Although I have not explained the theory in its entirety (i.e. I have not spoken about requests, offers, promises and declarations) I don't insist that you or anyone else subscribe to it. Obviously, I find it extremely useful and I will use it as the basis for my responses to some of the posts that this discussion has generated. Before I do so, however, I am interested in hearing your point or argument about 'Defining truth and all that (continued)' which is your header for this thread. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 11:18:08 (GMT) From: janet Email: None To: Jim and Michael Subject: Defining truth and all that (continued).. Message:

Jim:the word you were searching for, that refers to the authors of dictionaries is 'lexicographers'.Michael and Jim:on the difference between an assessment and an assertion:the difference appears to be in strength of posture, in force of position taken. assessment seems to carry a more tenative, less charged, impersonal measure of estimation, with qualifiers and accommodation available, if alternate information seems to support it. assertion is more vehement, emotional, contentious and defensive; more committed and authoritive in tone.in terms of ego, i think assertion is more heavily invested in being right and dominating, while assessment is more diplomatic, flexible and tactful. to use the description of 'a lie' to describe a statement as not true, is a bit strong, I think. Considering that either phenomenon can be subject to a discovery of error, ignorance or mistake, assessment is the more graceful of the two acts, allowing for a gentler modification in views.However, assertions, if subsequenty shown to be erroneous, exact a heavier price, in humbling and making amends and in accepting the corrected comprehension of the situation, once the additional information is known. an assertion that is too heavily invested may become impossible to rescind, even despite the appearance of new understanding to the contrary, due to the rigidity with which it was first presented and purported.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:44:50 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: ... and here's why Message:

Grammatically, these statements are identical. Yet, in Austin’s ontology, the first statement is an “assessment” and the second statement is an “assertion.” First, I take issue with this terminology. Both words, 'assessment' and 'assertion' have plain meanings in english and I'm not comfortable with anyone commandeering the lagnuage like this. What do I mean? Well, as far as I understand the language I've been speaking for fourty some odd years, both statements are assertions and neither is an assessment. Oxford again: 'assertion: 1) a declaration; a forthright statement. 2) the act or an instance of asserting. 3) insistence on the recognition of one's rights or claims.' 'assess:1)[a] estimate the size or quality of, [b]estimate the value of (a property) for taxation, etc.' So an assessment seems to be a mental process while an assertion is a communication of sorts. So that's the first thing. Why confuse people with special meanings that contradict the normal usage of words? I realize that some people may argue that “Bill is smart” is a statement of fact that is either “true” or “false.” Here’s why I disagree. When I say Bill is six feet tall, I can “observe” Bill and I can physically measure his height to prove whether or not he is six feet tall. If he is, then I have made a true assertion. If not, I have made a false assertion, which most people would call a lie. So? Lie or not, it's an assertion. No one ever said that all the assertions we make about the world had to be accurate. They're still assertions. At least to me and my good friends at Oxford they are. On the other hand, I cannot “observe” smart. Unlike a tree or a chair, smart exists only in language. I know it's only an example but I have to say I disagree with that last sentence. I can indeed observe smart in the same way I can observe other qualities in action. The word 'smart' carries with it the notion of some sort of subjective judgement. Having said that, it's easy enough to detect smartness, or what people perceive as smartness, even when others might disagree. The subjective aspect of the word doesn't mean there's something inaccurate about asserting the word as a descriptor. What I can observe is Bill’s behavior and I may “assess” that it conforms to behavior I assess as smart. Agreed. To do so, however, I would need to ground my assessment. This means that I would first have to specify a domain of concern. More special jargon. And for what really? Should I look up 'ground' as well? Okay I will. ..... Hey, man, what are you trying to do to me? This is Friday night and there's no way I'm going to copy all that shit down! We're talking one big definition, let me tell you. But the salient part, I'm sure you'll agree, is just this: 'base (a principle, conclusion, etc.) on.' That's the only part of the definition that even begins to offer some relevance. But is that what you're saying or are you saying something a little different? It doesn't seem to really fit and thus I say it looks like special jargon. Perhaps you could explain. Likewise, this 'domain of concern'. What the fuck? This was my problem with Maturana. Lots of special language with no apparent justification for same. Why? What's going on? Can anyone tell me? In english, I mean? For instance, I may assess that Bill is smart in the domain of “physics” but not very smart in the domain of “fishing.” Next, I would have to establish my standards for smartness in the domain of physics. These standards may include an IQ of 200 or above, and a post doctorate degree from MIT. Given these standards, I can now make assertions about how Bill conforms or not to those standards. Thus, Bill may be assessed as smart by some and not so by others according to their respective standards. If that's the big story, what a lot of nothing about nothing! (No offence). Sounds like all you're saying is that 'Bill is smart' is a much vaguer statement than 'Bill is a smart fisherman' or 'Bill is smart because he's got a high IQ'. I mean, really, Mike, what's the big deal about any of this? I don't get it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 02:55:31 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Congratulations. Message:

Jim: Congratulations on winning your case. We lost ours a few months ago, an interminable case that involved almost three years of my life. The judge made a sloppy assessment. No jury. It too gained national attention, but fortunately no one interviewed me. Oh well, we have another one coming up, in Florida. I'm not sure why you're taking Michael to task on this assessment versus assertion thing. It seems perfectly obvious that 'Bill is smart' is an assessment, and thus to reach agreement we have to make our conditions compatible. We have to at least create what methodologists call a 'crosswalk.' You could regard it as an assertion, but by doing so you foreclose the possibility of non-problematic agreement. Why would you do that, if you didn't need to? In other words, you've just opened the possibility of endless argument and disagreement about standards, because you've assumed there's some objective standard that would settle the issue beyond any further disagreement, or at least weight the issue definitively. The person making the statement could be a moron, and he's making the statement comparatively. Strictly speaking, I could argue that the second statement, that what's-his-name is 6ft tall (or maybe it was the first), is also an assessment... because of a little thing called measurement error. But that's being nitpicky when it's not necessary. The fact is that we can usually get an answer to such questions of fact to within a relevant level of resolution. So, your argument about the second statement being an assertion just turns it into an endless wrangle about what level of resolution is definitive. Or rather, what standards will settle things for future argumentation or what weight they will play in future disagreement. To put it in lawyerly talk, you can't establish a universal precedent for 'smart,' whereas it's pretty easy to establish one for '6 feet.' To provide a less obscure example, suppose I make the statement that 'Tom has an IQ of 150.' This is clearly an assessment *and* an assertion. As an assertion, it's a statement about what score Tom attained on a particular test taken on a particular day, or an average score for a range of tests, or something. The tests themselves are, however, an assessment of intelligence and require grounding in methodology in order to be regarded as convincing or be discounted as unconvincing. So the statement is also an 'objective assessment.' So, there isn't any jargon involved. Just language. But I'll bet the discussion over methodology involves a *lot* of jargon. Ever read the controversy about The Bell Curve? By the way, the assertion if incorrect need not be a lie. It could just be a mistake. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:07:18 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Scott T. Subject: Congratulations. Message:

Scott, By the way, the assertion if incorrect need not be a lie. It could just be a mistake. I thought of that point moments after I submitted my post. You are, of course, correct. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:29:29 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: On another level... Message:

the statement that 'Tom has an IQ of 150' is an assessment even if Tom did, in fact, score 150 on the test. On one hand an IQ test is open to issues of validity and reliability, both as to whether 'IQ' is a measure of intelligence, and whether the test is a reliable indicator of IQ. Is it a good test, too easy, too hard, etc. So, on one hand the 'assertion' is easily resolved by simply referencing the score attained in the instant example (or calculating a mean). The assessment issue is not so easily resolved, and to imply that it is by refering to the statement in that sense as an 'assertion' simply creates an argument that is largely irrelevant to the issues of reliability and validity. Which means that refering to the statement as an 'assertion' in this latter sense is 'inaccurate.' If this nomenclature is accepted it means that the 'assertion' must either automatically be regarded as false, foreclosing the result, or it mangles the meaning by obscuring responsibility. I made an assertion that *must* be false in some sense, so therefore I can't take responsibility for it. It would be foolish to do so. However, I can make an assessment that I can take responibility for, because there are observable and known limits to my responsibility. I can't later be tricked into making concessions I didn't intend to make. Ultimately however, I think we can get around this by simply acknowledging that there are truth claims belonging to different categories, and therefore requiring differents sorts of standards. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:32:12 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Jim Subject: he is talking about how we define reality on FV.nt Message:

sdff

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 01:35:24 (GMT) From: Clarification! Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Defining truth and all that (continued) Message:

Michael, The truth I'm talking about here is the one you experience when you sit for a half an hour each day and do your deep breathing exercises. You know, when the words stop. The intellectual content accompanying the experience of transcendance (yes it's an experience) is not important, since the basic result is the disappearence of the intellect (i.e., words) as the filter of experience. Sunyata or transcendence or being in the Spirit, is never an idea: it's always a mode of experience. In that state we experience release from the tryrannny of our mind. It's peaceful. By the way I appreciate your telling the truth about Maharaji. That's small 't' truth. And it's important. But IMO silence of mind is Truth with a capital 'T'. You take Aikido. I've also studied martial arts. I remember seeing a film once of two masters sparring. It was in slow motion. As soon as one guy 'stopped to think' the other threw and nailed him. Why? Because the guy who stopped to think, who took a position, was vulnerable. Stay in the tao, stay empty, and where can the tiger put his claws? Like a bird, he rises on limitless air And flies an invisible course. He wisher for nothing. His food is knowledge. He lives on emptiness. He has broken free. - Buddha I don't know. Maybe I'm being far too zen and preachy for you guys on a Friday night. In any event, I've just had a few dirty looks from the better half. I think it's time to get off the internet. ttly, Deputy Dog

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 02:22:52 (GMT) From: 5'11'bill Email: None To: Clarification! Subject: egad dog, I hope MD dissects your truth.nt Message:

fdjf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:45:47 (GMT) From: 5'11'vilhelm Email: None To: 5'11'bill Subject: I see he did already in the inactive file .nt Message:

lkj

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:02:44 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: 5'11'vilhelm Subject: My earlier post. Message:

Michael and Jim, I don’t believe you guys, looking for truth in a dictionary for God sakes. Looking for truth in a bunch of black squiggly lines. Still trapped at the verbal level! I mean words are important but they account for only 15% of human communication. They are fun to play with and use to create moods and make a living, but Reality with a capital R, come on. It’s not in a dictionary, IMO it’s in the Book of Life. Thinking that words are Truth is like going into a restaurant, asking for a menu, and then eating the menu. Truth is prior to verbalisation. Words are so limited. More than 700 years ago Zen Master Mumon said, Words do not convey actualities; Letters do not embody the spirit of a human being. He who attaches himself to words is lost; He who abides with letters will remain in ignorance. In other “words”, if one clings to verbal expressions and lacks (or ignores) the ability to grasp the essence that transcends them, he will forever miss the Truth with a capital T. Don’t forget, two centuries ago the earth was flat, and if chose to disagree or say otherwise they would set you on fire. That’s agreement reality, reality with a small r. The mind, that we put so much stock into, is simply a bunch of recordings of what used to be. They are yesterday’s paper, conditioning, stimulus-response machinery, live in your mind and you live in your past conditioning. In fact most of the really fantastic times I’ve had in my short life happened when “I-mind” wasn’t there, sex being one of them, sports another. The physical universe (which includes the mind) is based on agreement. Would reading about skydiving be the same as skydiving? Would reading a book about hashish be the same as having a few puffs? Of course it wouldn’t. “Holy Name” is the most real thing I know. The rest is just BS, i.e. belief system, just yadda, yadda, yadda! For me, Truth with a capital T happens when my “drunken monkey” takes a nap, i.e., when I step out of the past. Okay, so I’ve just become an arrogant preacher proving Michael right. I just couldn’t shut up. It’s just that when I am in the Spirit (yes THAT PLACE) I feel so much better and so much more alive. And I don’t need to explain or interpret, it would seem kind of chintzy if I did. Let me leave you with some words from Chang Tzu. A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 07:30:26 (GMT) From: Bazza Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: Yap yap yap Message:

For someone who slags off the use of words as being just so much hot air, you don't half spew out your share of them matey. Don't think I've ever see someone who's so full of other people's quotes as you. Next time your 'monkey' gets drunk, maybe you should spank it. Wanker.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 07:40:29 (GMT) From: Steve Quint Email: the_avenger55@hotmail.com To: Bazza Subject: Yap yap yap Message:

We're seeing the late aftereffects of all the ex-lax that the perfect one gave to premies in the past. See recent posts. Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 07:13:13 (GMT) From: Francesca Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: I'm a little teapot Message:

short and stout here is my handle here is my spout. When I get all steamed up then I shout, 'just tip me over pour me out!' Yowsa. It's late, and I'm laughing till I'm crying. Sorry. You guys have beaten my brain silly and that's the truth. Or is it the Truth?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:26:39 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: chang tzu is barking and talking! Message:

Yes you feel your breath and I do too, but to be honest, it does not do any more than it does! It does not merge us into the infinite or provide us with escape from human nature. We are still locked tight and bound. What does that tell us? What do the boundries tell us?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 16:23:31 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: bill Subject: Chuang Tzu is barking up the wrong tree - Message:

- if he thinks barking has nothing to do with being a good dog. That's the very reason that primitive man struck up a bond with them - their barking alerted him to strangers approaching his dwelling-place. PS is it my imagination, or is Dep sounding like he's taken a course in spiritual one-up-manship lately?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 01:39:34 (GMT) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Clarification! Subject: Sorry, Clarification = Deputy Dog (nt) Message:

Sunyata is not the same thing as shutting up!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:56:28 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Assessment Message:

Unfortunately, I usually hear the word 'assessment' to mean the value by which my property taxes are calculated. And it surely is an opinion that doesn't necessarily have any basis in reality, so probably more like an assertion, really, and probably very untrue. ::))

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 04:14:09 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Assessment Message:

Joe: I think of the 'National Assessment of Education Progress,' because that's what they pay me to analyze. As for property taxes, in Oregon we foresaw that the problem with tax limitation is that they just raise the assessment. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 23:48:13 (GMT) From: Patrick (Anon) Email: None To: Jim Subject: Defining truth and all that (continued) Message:

Just taking a break from work - thought I'd bust in on your thread - sorry if I'm off beam. 1) Do you believe that words have definitions? Yup 2) Do you generally accept dictionary definitions? If not, why? And if not, and you DO believe in definitions, where would you find them if not dictionaries? Qualified yes- words historically change their meaning according to popular use - Of course dictionaries can take a while to catch up on the current meaning of some words -thus the need to have an up-to-date dictionary! 3) If 1's a 'yes', how would you define 'truth'? 'Assessment'? And whatever the other one was, how would you define that? truth trooth, n. faithfulness: constancy: veracity: agreement with reality: fact of beingtrue:actuality: accuracy of adjustment or conformity: in the fine arts, a faithful adherence to nature: that which is true or according to the facts of the case: the true state of things or facts: atrue statement: an established fact: true belief: known facts, knowledge. _ adj. truthful habitually or actually telling what one believes to be true: put forward in good faith as what one believes to be true: conveying the truth. truth drug any of various drugs, such as scopolamine or pentothal sodium, which make subjects under questioning less wary in their replies...etc Assessment act of assessing - to fix the amount of, as a tax: to tax or fine: to fix the value or profits of, for taxation : to estimate, judge etc. 4) Do you think that your definitions of these words are special definitions or do you think that you're using the words in their common, if proper, sense? If your definitions ARE special, where'd you get them and why? I am not sure that I habitually alter the common meaning of words - I have invented a few of my own like 'Pong-tippety' and others which have various meanings only known by specific people who are instructed in my coded language. Language seems to present a communication problem when people are unaware of all the possible meanings of words and choose to interpret words with more than one meaning in the wrong way. As far as I know there is no law against using words in any way you wish (unless you actually go against the law in doing so) - from the well-intentioned obscure ambiguous and poetic on the one hand, to the cryptic and deliberately misleading on the other. It's up to the listener to guage the accuracies of others words. I have a number of premie friends who 'assess' that their inner experiences are divine but who are unwilling to also assess that it may be wishful thinking. The language they use bears out that they want to interpret their experiences using the more esoteric uses of words such as Truth (with a capital T) , Knowledge etc. What strikes me as naive is that people have the need to put labels on and attribute their experiences to whatever takes their fancy. That seems to be a travesty of the meaning of the word 'truth' whichever way you look at it. I think it would be more honest, at the end of the day to just admit that one doesn't know. What's this obsession with having to know all the answers all about? There is some leeway in the dictionary definition of 'telling the truth ' for telling unintentional lies! habitually or actually telling what one believes to be true: put forward in good faith as what one believes to be true:

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:08:23 (GMT) From: Kelly Email: None To: Patrick (Anon) Subject: Defining truth and all that (continued) Message:

Hi Patrick, just a quickie, That's a 'terrific' post. What does 'terrific' mean? Look it up!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!! It's a total contradiction brought about by popular usage....Like..'wicked' meaning really good and 'bad' means good. Who the fuck cares? lets just try to communicate! Love Kelly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 00:32:40 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Kelly Subject: I agree, Kelly, but... Message:

Hi, I't a matter of taste. Lots of people like to get into deep, intense intellectual discussion and that pops up here often. I don't have the energy for it although I think this is a pretty smart bunch of folks! I read some posts, say to myself ''that's beyond me,'' or ''I'm too tired to exercise my brain. It's a lot of mental energy, and in our case, a good thing. Love, Cynthia, not Martha Stewart

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:55:56 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Jim Subject: This should be interesting :) (nt) Message:

a

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:49:48 (GMT) From: Postie Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Origins of M's abusive behavior Message:

Threads below bringing to light some of M's psychological and physical abuses got me thinking about the origins of that abuse. Conlon, as I recall, noted that during the 30th anniversary program, M briefly mentioned the yelling and tyrannical behavior in his home while growing up. I latched onto that image because I had always sort of idealized M's formative years as being 'perfect'. Certainly healthier than my own. In other words, born into a saintly household, surrounded by 'spiritual' people. Immersed in satsang, service and meditation. I romanticized his upbringing as the ideal childhood - the one to measure all other childhoods by. Of course little Prem Rawat would grow into his role of Balyogeshwar - born lord of the yogis. Why wouldn't he? But I keep thinking about that psychological abuse that M inadvertently mentioned upon retrospection of those years. A moment of honesty? A cry for help, perhaps? I've been watching the Sopranos 3 episodes at a time in which a mob boss goes to therapy so that context seems appropriate here. What happens when a tyrant looks at himself honestly? We can only imagine what would happen if M did that. So here's a possible theory I've come up with to explain (but not excuse) M's abusive behavior. Assume young Prem Pal adored and worshipped his parents as is normal for any child to do. Psychologists say that children consider their parents like gods up to a point. Also assume that his father took on even more of a mythical stature since he was Sat Guru. Assume that at such a young age, one is highly impressionable and those impressions are magnified exponentially due to Shri Hans' status. Then, the father dies when Prem Pal is 6 years old. Losing a parent is a tragedy to any child but not only is father gone now, but the Guru - the Father with a capital F as well. But the light never dies. Young Prem Pal is told that he is the one to continue. While the 'holy family' is debating with the elders about who will become successor, a small contingent of Prem Pal worshippers crown him and in effect allow him to usurp the throne. The grieving devotees are relieved and grateful that 'Maharaj Ji' has not left. He is with them now. Prem Pal consoles them by saying 'Guru Maharaj Ji is with you now, surrender and obey me...etc.' Now that always seemed prophetic but after seeing Elian Gonzales chastise his father at the coaching of the Miami relatives... Well, who knows what a 6 year old is thinking. But I digress. Back to the theory. Prem Pal becomes the Guru. He becomes the Father (capital F) of the devotees and, in effect, the father of the Rawat family. It's only natural that his formative fathering and subsequent patterning be replicated in him. He had no other fathering. He had no other mentoring so why would his skills as a father, Father or Guru be any different than his birth father? In other words, the abusive, arrogant and manipulative M we know today has grown out of that Charismatic and precocious son of the Guru. Another psychological thread that has been mentioned often here is the fact that no one has ever successfully challenged M or his abusive behavior. I would assume that he has never been disciplined by an elder or taught the consequences of his actions. Often people posting here have mentioned the similarities between abusive homelife and M's abuse. Whether the abuse was overt or the garden variety abuse by neglect that many of us grew up with, it is a legacy that has to be dealt with. Perhaps the reason M was and is so persuasive now is precisely because of that abusiveness. An abusive authority figure is what we expected - to a point that is. That point for me was when I became self empowered via cathartic methods such as rebirthing and group work. At that point I realized I no longer needed an overbearing authority figure. I became that authority for myself. For better or worse. In the process, I've spent years trying to 'un-pattern' myself from the fathering I got - the stuffing of feelings, the angry outbursts, the shaming comments and the rest. It's hard work but worth it. Hey, Maharaji, try it you'll like it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:21:36 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Postie Subject: Origins of M's abusive behavior Message:

Hi Postie, m did have a midlife crisis after his mom died and all sorts of doubts about how he lived came to the surface. You could follow it in his talks for a few years. A few sentences here and there that would be the latest leak of what he was going through. I thought that was quite the big story of his talks but all the premies I mentioned it to didnt know what I was talking about. They were not catching it. He ended up falling back on the hindu 'i play god and you treat me as god' schtick. So, I gave his mid life crisis an F.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 17:07:41 (GMT) From: janet Email: None To: bill Subject: his midlife crisis clues-where are these? Message:

i was away from satsang during the video era and never saw these episodes you speak of. i would be very interested to see them now. can you remember when they were? maybe find some quotes to put up as example?i seem to remember someone saying here that raja ji is probably the only one who has ever gotten in his brother's face and honestly cut him apart with genuine criticism. the instance mentioned happenned in 91 while they were coming back from their mother's funeral and mj wwas pompously asking rj if he thought their mother felt gratitude to him when she died. rj reportedly lit into mj and ripped him a new asshole for his stinking self involved wonderings.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 23:18:50 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Postie Subject: Origins of M's abusive behavior Message:

Dear Postie, Good post, thank you. Especially the caveat: there is no excuse for M's behavior because of his fucked up childhood. I agree with everything you said about him. At age 6, children are still into magical thinking and are supposed to be, hopefully, adjusting to the fact that the universe doesn't revolve around them. IMO it's too late for M. He's a a grown man, physically anyway. His developmental stage is probably at about 2-1/2 at this point: I-Me-Mine. I could write a thesis on the reasons my biological father was so severely abusive and tyrannical. Yet, today, in 2001, he's still steeped in booze to the point of no return. And my father is a nobody with little money with no power over anyone, especially his estranged family. That's why I have come to believe Maharaji is so dangerous. By alienating premies from eachother, by firing instructors and being the ONLY ONE to impart K, he has become quite paranoid, IMO. That's dangerous in my book. As a survivor of crime, I tend to not want to look at the inter-workings of perpetrators. (Yeah, that's why I read so many true-crime books about serial killers):)) But seriously, the close to home explanations are helpful, but I generally end up saying ''so what.'' I went through major traumas and I never exploited anybody, quite the opposite.... Be well, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 02:10:13 (GMT) From: Postie Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: It's never too late for M to change.... Message:

..... and this is stretching the realm of possibility a looooooooong way but, M's wakeup call could even come from something posted here. I may be terminally optimistic regarding the ability of a human being to 'awaken' but it is possible. Thanks for your personal insights.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:27:45 (GMT) From: Joy Email: None To: Postie Subject: It's Never Too Late Message:

My therapist has a bumper sticker on her car that says 'It's Never Too Late to Have a Happy Childhood'. I always liked that. I assume it means you can re-parent your 'inner child' and thereby help heal some of the old wounds. I don't know about human beings who think they're Satguru's, though. That's a pretty hard dream to awaken from, I would imagine (particularly with all the material possessions and power over people that goes along with it). I don't see it ever happening, myself. He's way too arrogant, and I would imagine it's much too addicting a power-trip to relinquish. Miracles have been known to happen, but in this case, I wouldn't bet on it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 21:39:38 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Joy Subject: It's Never Too Late Message:

Hi Joy, It's never to late for people who want to change, make amends, deal with childhood issues, whatever. I doubt very much Maharaji wants to change. If anything, he's become more greedy and narcissistic with age. No, I don't think he'll be attending any group therapy sessions in the near future:))) Love, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 05:07:34 (GMT) From: Postie Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: ACOAWATTWA = Self help group for retired avatars Message:

ACOAWATTWA Adult Children of Avatars Who Also Thought They Were Avatars

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 17:14:26 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Postie Subject: ACOAWATTWA--How'd he get through the 1ST STEP! nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:04:25 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Everyone Subject: The new use for the Kissimee swamp.site Message:

I have been informed by someone in the know that the bug-infested swamp we had to wallow in during those 'festivals' in 1978 and 1979 with the Lord of the Universe, has been turned into a 'Christian Theme Park' at a cost of $16 million. I understand you are met by a guy in a white robe upon entering and the place is patrolled by Roman guards. Apparently some Jewish groups have protested that the park attacks the Jewish Religion. Ironic, isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:37:16 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Joe Subject: I was wondering about that Kissimee swamp.site Message:

Joe, About 3 years ago we drove down to Florida for three weeks. Tom was working, I was along for the ''work-vacation'' and having flashbacks just entering the Florida border. Passing through Orlando going west to get to North Captiva which was our destination I was blown away by the development there in the 20 years I'd been away. I also wondered what ever happened to that scrappy piece of land we used to camp out on. Thanks for the info. Very ironic:)) Love, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 23:44:09 (GMT) From: Brian S Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: the best thing about that site was Message:

the grove of orange trees on it that the owner was not harvesting they let us pick and eat all we wanted. Without a doubt the sweetest freshest juiciest oranges that I have ever eaten. At least I have one fond memory of an otherwise wierd and stressed out bizarre event, particulary the lord in the cart routine, the mesquitoe's and the rantings and ravings of M day and night.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 04:56:29 (GMT) From: moldy warp Email: None To: Brian S Subject: the best thing about that site was Message:

And the best thing about those oranges that they provided a perfect complimentary food to the porridge oats I had brought from England to live on for 10 days!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:24:35 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: moldy warp Subject: yeah I liked those oranges.nt Message:

asdfga

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:48:37 (GMT) From: ex-flowerchild Email: None To: Everyone Subject: bragons, blankets, bollocks Message:

What was the bragon (sp?) all about. You know that odd bit of wood that one rested ones arms on when stuffing fingers into ears, tongues down throats, fingers into eyes and hyperventilating under a blanket. There was a sort of silent competition about who had the best one. A battered looking bragon was a sign of a careless quest for enlightenment. Is there some strange Hindu background to this too or did DLM make it up? And the blanket thing? Another invention? Why did we have to sit in rooms together each with a blanekt over our entire bodies. Sometimes I am lost for words when I think of just how creepy the whole thing was, how deeply perverse. The bragon and the blanket were fetish objects really in a way. Tell me about your bragons and blankets and what they meant to you. Mine had flowers painted on it and Jai Sat Chit Anand. It was made out of pine and the top came of and the bottom bit was adjustable. It was very uncomfortable and kept wobbling as I dozed off. Actually the contraption annoyed me. My blanket was fine wool, a devotional light blue. Not sure what happened to the bragon thing. I guess I must have thrown it out when my mind returned. I found life under the blanket pretty stuffy, hot and freaky. I was always hoping that His Lotus Feet would materialise or that I'd have an amazing experience. Did anyone really? You have to laugh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 17:47:00 (GMT) From: janet Email: None To: ex-flowerchild Subject: barogans, blankets, Message:

i still have mine. my barogan is made of lucite. i have had it for 26 years, now. all the others i had broke under the strain at some point. i had plain wood ones and high tech ones with collapsible aluminum legs. i tried various designs before getting settled in with the lucite one. the northampton premie house manufactured them in the period before amherst, and i didnt know when i bought it in denver that i would be living there in massachusetts with them by the following summer. to me it surpassed all the others i ever owned because it was clear see-thru. i thought it looked sleek, timeless, clean, cosmic and otherworldly. i seized upon the symbolic fact that it was 'clear' and that it 'let all the light come through it', it has proven to be damned near unbreakable, a trait i have come to deeply value in anything. so that would be still another keeping point about it. blankets--i understood the value of the meditation shawl to be a shutting out of the distractions one might see between techniques, so that one could go deeper into the meditation, not to mention shielding any prying eyes from seeing the secretive techniques before their proper time. i used anything available and was satisfied to have somethng, but i have ended up hanging onto and using three (now 2) indian- made, fine spun woolen shawls i bought in miami at the krishna temple when my son was an infant. i liked them for multiple reasons: they were/are as drapaey and soft as rayon. i could use them as slings to carry my son in. they were never too hot for sumer. i could wear them as wraps as well as meditate with them. and i liked the feeling of soaking them in all those hours and years of Holy Name, and then wrapping it around me like a shield, both when iwent out and when i stayed in. over the years they have developed holes, but they still serve me well. I have used them for baby blankets, pet warmers, pillows, bed jackets, modesty coverings, death shrouds, dog toys, beach and picnic blankets, window curtains, sleeping masks to black out daylight , and headwarmers on chilly nights as a sleeping cap,and more. i can now say they are my wholly, hole-ey, holi, holy relics. and i can breathe better with the larger holes over my nose if i meditate with them!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 03:57:25 (GMT) From: Bazza Email: bshaw8@bellsouth.net To: ex-flowerchild Subject: Saying howdy Message:

I've not been reading the forum much lately so I guess I missed your arrival. Anyway, hello and welcome and all that crap. People what know me here are used to me asking this of anonymous newcomers, but would you be up for telling a bit about yourself, in addition to your interesting posts and questions? Nothing too personal, you know, just where you spent your Cult years, what country you live in now, was you in the ashram, do you know any of us here (and vice versa). It just makes conversing with you a bit less like auditioning for a Roger Rabbit movie, if you know what I mean. cheers bazza (Barry Shaw)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:49:31 (GMT) From: Been There Email: None To: ex-flowerchild Subject: baragans Message:

Baragans are shown in old Indian paintings. Apparantly they have a long tradition (as do the techniques).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 22:07:02 (GMT) From: Kelly Email: None To: ex-flowerchild Subject: bragons, blankets, bollocks Message:

Dear flowerchild ex or not, First of all, I was given a sort of Divine assurance about 'beragons' because..Look...In that picture of Lord Shiva....he's resting his arm on one. It's obviously an ancient technique used by the Gods, no less. I still have a lovely cherry wood beragon that my dear non-premie husband made for me, and ,in recent times I have been using it...especially for the music technique.. Strictly verbotten of course!! but ., I'm sorry , my arms ached. I once carved one out of Balsa wood (extremely light) for travelling, but some theiving premie stole it!! The blankie was just for privacy...surely?? Bollocks? I'm not an expert on that! I'm doing fine now without all these accoutrements, how about you? Love Kelly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:50:43 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: All Subject: Deluxe Model with Indian Print blanket cover.... Message:

that was dark pink and soft...in the winter, dark, soft blanket. What is the correct spelling of baragon????? Anyone? I just don't know....hmmm...bragon, beragon, boragon, beragen, brogan, boroken--there must be hundreds of spellings???? Someone must know the true spelling! I still have mine. I loved my b-thing. It gave me comfort when my head would swirl uncontrollably. I found it three years ago inside an old suitcase stowed in our damp basement. It was moldy! A super-deluxe model, too. It started out as a humble b-thing with a wooden curved top and a screw-out stick. Then my good friend Steve C. (Hartford) modified it for me... ...it had a telescoping holder/stick (to change heights for the light and music techniques) and was padded with dense and comfy foam which was covered in royal blue plush velvet! When I tried to go back to M in 1998, I reappolstered it not knowing that those holders were now banned. I was doing the techiques backwards too (wrong sequence). That was unsyncronized of me, JeezumCrow! And I swear to my grave! I never ONCE fell asleep on it!! Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 17:50:03 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: ex-flowerchild Subject: Here's another beragon retailor Message:

Check that one: Baba Nand Singh Ji Maharaj

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 18:54:22 (GMT) From: Don Clark Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Eternal Glory of Baba Nand Singh Ji Maharaj Message:

This is the best spiritual site I have ever come across. I think no site really comes close in terms of Divine Content, peace and satisfaction it can deliver. All Glory to Baba Nand Singh Ji Maharaj.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:28:30 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: proudly claiming he is a 'feet licker'..nt Message:

fg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:55:10 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: All Seven Core Pores Aligned with Immortal Nam.. Message:

His core pores (all seven of them), being aligned with the 'Immortal Nam' is one listed example of this guy's 'Embodiment of All Divine Virtues and Excellence.' Others include that he has 'never cursed anyone' and, I love this one: 'Above Greed to the Same Extent as God.' I am impressed. But I'm afraid Maharaji would fail miserably in the cursing and greed categories of divine virtues and excellence, and I don't know if Maharaji's 'core pores' are aligned or not, but I doubt it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 05:10:55 (GMT) From: Moldy Warp Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Oops I have gone fron dataar to daar or dart or Message:

something equally ominous.- let myself be diverted by maya. Never mind, I was probably doomed anyway (like the proverbial rotting vegetable) as I am a woman and so cannot enter the holy one's holy place. Bollocks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:47:54 (GMT) From: Jean-Paul Email: jfagnaux@hotmail.com To: All Subject: Links to god ... Message:

Does anybody has collected links to sites of perfect masters and incarnations of god who are competing now to save the world and win the prize of the best connection to god and of the best fraud? Like the one that Jean-Michel lets us discover.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 03:42:50 (GMT) From: RT Email: None To: all who read the truth Subject: guru rating 'service' Hum Drum Message:

http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Ratings.htm Sarlo's Guru Rating Service Welcome to Sarlo's Guru Rating Service, a compilation of mostly non-mainstream religious leaders whose mission/job description is basically to help us lift ourselves out of the multiple ruts of misery we find ourselves in as we live our lives. Their methods, quality and authenticity vary tremendously, as do the degree to which they encourage worship of their exalted selves and even their conceptions of our misery. What they have in common (mostly) is a kind of free-standingness, at least a semi-independence from traditional established (organised) religious structures and hierarchies, although of course there is nothing to stop them from setting up their own structures and hierarchies. +++

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 15:46:05 (GMT) From: Gregg Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: Message:

This is from the intro to 'The Strange Case of Franklin Jones,' a long and fascinating online account of Da Free John and his followers in the mid-seventies: 'Back then I was a young university graduate embittered by the hypocrisy shown by an America at war with 'communism' and its own children. I was not pleased at the prospect of a middle-class existence (assuming I survived long enough) and, like millions of others, was desperately trying to discover new ways of understanding that might make it possible to actually live the idealistic values with which I had been raised. 'The hopeful optimism of the late sixties was long gone by the dark days of 1974; it was time to stop browsing in the spiritual supermarket and get on with the serious work of inner transformation, before it was too late. The world was in dire straights and nothing short of a revolution in human consciousness could hope to save it, desperate times requiring desperate measures. Like many of my apocalyptically anxious fellow-travelers, I was fairly immature, reasonably cynical in a generic way, but at the same time quite naive and impressionable in specific instances. 'I suppose I was reasonably representative of an entire generation of individuals, who despite their many differences shared similar attitudes of frustration, despair, and longing. For many, the answers were no longer to be found in the failed theologies and empty religious practices of the West. We looked East for the ecstatic awareness that would halt the mad march of consumer 'culture,' heal the planet, and restore our souls. What made sense to us then may seem very strange in the 1990s. 'In the process of mulling over my experiences, I have been reminded again and again just how subtly, but significantly, my current frame of reference differs from that of twenty years ago; the same must be true for nearly everyone, which leads me to suspect that projecting oneself into one's own past is nearly as perilous an undertaking as predicting the future.' -by Scott Lowe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:07:30 (GMT) From: ex-flowerchild Email: None To: Gregg Subject: Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: Message:

Now that is a cool insight. Do you know how it was that the East was set up as the source of spiritual enlightenment, a sort of cure for the West? I recall that the Theosophy movement which started in the late 1800s started importing ideas about Eastern mysticism. People like the English radical Edward Carpenter was a proto-hippy who was very into all of that, and nudism, free love, vegetarianism, socialism, healing the Western body politic with Eastern bliss etc. He influenced D. H. Lawrence. I think that the hippy movement started, maybe, with modernism, as a rebellion against middle-class rationalism and repression. Then sometime later people like Norman O Brown with 'Love's Body' etc started making Hinduism groovy. Wish I knew more. Guess it's part of the anti-Enlightenment strain within modernity which leads to all sorts of irrational crap. Long live Mr Mind, or Ms Mind, as the case may be. But does the mind have a sex? If so, how do we know this? What is 'mind'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:35:20 (GMT) From: Monmot Email: None To: ex-flowerchild Subject: Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: Message:

In conjunction with your analysis, I think the Beatles' involvement with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM goosed a large segment of the population into looking toward the East. Also, writers like Aldous Huxley (Doors of Perception), Herman Hesse, Ouspensky, Gurdjieff etc. dovetailed nicely with the post-acid search for 'truth.' These are just a couple of elements in a complex topic.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:53:15 (GMT) From: ex-flowerchild Email: None To: Monmot Subject: Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: Message:

yeah, I agree with that. It beame very popular then. But I was wondering about how it all first came into the West. Maybe something to do with British India and the experiences there which filtered back? Got something to do with colonialism, maybe. What do you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 17:04:16 (GMT) From: Monmot Email: None To: ex-flowerchild Subject: Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: Message:

Good question. I'm going to have to think on that one. I know that Ramakrishna (not sure if this guy's the one) came to the States in the late 19th century, and his lectures were wildly popular. The colonialism idea is intriguing. What an irony, huh? The west colonializes the east, and now it appears that the east has colonialized the west. The twain now have met: the consumer culture of the west in conjuction with the 'spirituality' of the east now finds expression in the mass production and consumption of Buddha statues, Buddha t-shirts, instant gratification Buddha books, fetishes, beads, etc. atc. Talk about hoisted by one's own petard.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:11:53 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Monmot Subject: I think colonialism had a lot to do with it. Message:

The colonialization of Southern Asia, especially India, where Engligsh became a widely-spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries, and lots of literature drifted around the world about religious and spiritual practices that were thought to be non-material and there was 'work ethic.' To me, I always saw the whole hippie movement from a political perspective, because I couldn't relate to the social perspective. I think it was a reaction to the political repression of the 50s, a reaction to the threat of nuclear war, and the recognition of civil rights and self-determination. Also, young people from middle class families actually had the TIME and ability to experiment in alternatives, which really hadn't existed before. So, Eastern Spirituality was attractive because it was supposedly non-material, non-competitive, non-violent -- at least the commercial view of it was like that, and since hippieism was mostly a REACTION TO what was going on, rather than a movement itself that was built on anything, many people embraced the exotic differentness of the East. Actually, though much of Eastern Spirituality is racist, sexist, rigid, negative, etc. But most people don't notice that until they really get into it. I think the other thing that was happening was that India, at least, was buying big-time into Western values at the same time. So, the Gurus, like Maharaji, saw the opportunity to gain vast material wealth in the West, by marketing their teachings, which had become attractive to Westerners. You can look at India now and see how far that has come. That society has become amazingly centered on money, consumer products, films and entertainment, etc. But in typical India fashion, many people have statues of the God of money (can't remember his name) in their homes and yards. Typical India, they make a god out of it and worship money.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:18:25 (GMT) From: Monmot Email: None To: Joe Subject: I think colonialism had a lot to do with it. Message:

I think Ganesh might be the god you're talking about. I see statues of Ganesh in a lot of upscale stores around here, so that's probably it since it dovetails nicely with the appearance of spirituality while really desiring materiality. Fits in with my theory that many times the truth appears as its opposite. Gotta love it. Unfortunately, it appears that this blending of cultures seems to embody the worst of each culture and produces a hybrid which makes the culture weaker, rather than stronger. Of course, I may just be cynical and ill-informed, but it looks that way to me. Fascinating topic, but I gotta run, and would love to spend more time discussing it. Was Mega Cities a documentary? In an oblique way, the film seems to fit into this topic, in that the people trying to survive in these cities are the upshot of this toxic mix of cultures. Just a shot in the dark wearing suglasses, though.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 20:23:01 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Monmot Subject: Megacities Message:

Yeah, I guess it is a documentary, but there is no narration, just the people themselves speaking about their lives. They talk about how they survive, what they think of their lives, and what their dreams are. It's pretty powerful in some respects, but difficult to watch in few places, but I grew to like the movie as I watched it. I thought it could have been sponsored by Global Exchange. It kind of gives you a view of how people are exploited to benefit the upper classes and yet are insulated from them. It made me feel like my concerns that my latte is too hot, or I can't find a good house cleaner, seemed awfully insignificant. Yeah, I also saw some kind of a connection to what we are talking about, but I'm not sure how to describe it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:42:47 (GMT) From: Ulf Email: None To: Monmot Subject: Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: Message:

In the 70`s i remember we all was reading Hesse He was surely god , at that time Have some of you tried to read him now?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:55:57 (GMT) From: ex-flowerchild Email: None To: Ulf Subject: Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: Message:

Yeah, Hess. I was reading him in the 80s in my teens. But where did Hess get it from?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 22:05:02 (GMT) From: Ulf Email: None To: ex-flowerchild Subject: Cool sociological analysis of 70's guru-chasers: Message:

Where he got it from i dont know,mayby from Jung i know that they where writing to each others, their letters is in a book i once was had. also his wife made a book about him after he died i never read it,,, mayby she had something to add? Ulf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:53:43 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: ex-flowerchild Subject: Early victorian times I'm sure Message:

There was a lot of interest in 'the mysteries of the orient' then, and especially an overlap with british colonial contact in India. The great fear for the brits there was of 'going native', which a few individuals did. Coleridge/Wordsworth/Byron etc were aware of this stuff, but the largest real first wave was around 1900 when it became a bit of an industry. Also think there was an overlap with the gnostic/cathar/essene/kabbalah crowd, and the free love crowd (ie pre-raphaelites, but free love scenes go way back to) which was always there as an option for the bohemian end of the upper classes. Don't know how much came this way (UK) from India before the the early 1800's, but it wouldn't be difficult imagining someone like William Blake (infinity in a grain of sand etc) getting into it. From the french end also, Rimbaud/Verlaine, also think it's interesting that all these poets were regular drug takers when it wasn't the norm, although there was more of it around than victorian propaganda would have us believe. Why not do a web search, something like uk/india/19c/mysticism should find some links.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 02:24:21 (GMT) From: ex-flowerchild Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Early victorian times I'm sure Message:

That is all really interesting. The Romantics were mostly influenced by stories from the East and also Africa. Byron was more into the East than the rest I think. Gothicism also played around with the orient, framing it as evil and seductive, feminine, enchanting etc. The myth of Solome at the turn of the century linked the orient to decadent feminine sexual energies. Lots of paintings and stories about this then. have to dash thanks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:56:55 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Everyone Subject: EV-DLM Papers Download page just updated Message:

Update your EV-DLM Papers copy. All the Indian stuff on your PC or Mac !!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:00:56 (GMT) From: Lilly Email: None To: Everyone Subject: You made me smile! Message:

I just love the name Ratguru! It made me smile. What lovely understated total lack of respect. I have recently started looking at the forum and can identify with so much of what is said. Only another premie really does understand. I cringe when I look back and see how sincerely gulible I was! How could anybody forgive him for what he has done, doing? In a way it is one of the worst crimes, because of what he took from us - our love, our trust, our sincerity, our time, our money, our faith, our loyalty, our very souls. Only an ex-premie understands on how many levels we gave. No I am not obsessed - but I like the truth. I would like to see him held to account. I would like to see a very public profile of his life, lifestyle, etc etc portrayed in every possible way. Premies however would not have the ears, or eyes or the ability to look at it objectively, because where Ratguru is concerned there can be no place for normal, reasoning, rational judgement. (of course they think he is god - end of argument). So, no I dont think ex premies are necessarily obsessed with Ratty (that far too sweet, make me think of Moley). We just want our just deserts. Best wishes and love from Lilly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 00:40:14 (GMT) From: Kelly Email: None To: Lilly Subject: You made me smile! Message:

Hi Lily, The name that really made me smile was 'Miragey' Also 'The Lard', but Ratguru is very good. You're right 'Ratty' is far too sweet. You said '' I cringe when I look back and see how sincerely gullible I was'' Don't knock yourself for this totally admirable motivation. So many of us were the same. I was utterly devoted , totally sincere....we really were. I was prepared to accept any hardship...any bullshit...because I truly believed that the current incarnation of the Divine Power was living amongst us and directing our lives. Of Course we did, we believed that the Messiah was amongst us etc. etc. That was the whole point. Never mind, we are older and wiser now, and we know different, BUT, there's a lot who haven't seen it yet, and for them it's important to tell our stories here. I hope you'll stay and tell us more. Much love, Kelly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:25:14 (GMT) From: JHB Email: None To: Lilly Subject: You made me smile! Message:

Welcome Lilly! Yes, being able to criticise Maharaji and even insult him, make fun of him, swear at him, is incredibly therapeutic after spending years not allowing ourselves any negative thoughts towards him. It's a test we use when premies come here - ask them to give their top three criticisms of Maharaji. And strangely enough they can't. Something in their brains won't allow it. May I ask you how long were you in how long since you've been out? John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 19:40:54 (GMT) From: c.g. Email: None To: JHB Subject: 3 Critisisms Message:

Ive been brainwashed for over thirty years and here's my three: 1. That he tells people they can 'fix' themselves if they surrender to him. No one can fix themselves by adhering themselves to a guru. they have to look truely within themselves with all it's problems not into a blank space called knowledge or what i mistakenly called rattie ji. 2. That people think that by climbing up the hiearchical ladder with dollars flying out of their pockets in the direction of Rattie Ji that they can win salvation. Wrong. 3. The weakening effect the above two have on people. couldn't resist a fourth: 4. That rattie ji is making millions of dollars from this scam that could be used in much more helpful ways. 5. That rattie ji is having extra marital affairs and that his wife and family and anyone else that might know about it aren't speaking out. (If this is still true) C.G.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 13:53:17 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Pirates of the Caribean Sea Message:

When I lived in Miami during the DECA years, and later reading stories of Columbian drug operations, I heard about the Pirates of the Caribean. I remember reading that hundreds of ships in the eighties disappeared and occupants murdered by modern day pirates that steal ships at sea. Our lord and his new and improved ship are floating in very threatening waters. The hundreds of Islands are home to many varied types of individuals and they make thier own rules. Sailing in those waters is not like driving in Malibu where America's rules and regs. operate and are enforced. No doubt in the nineties, like the eighties, pirates are doing thier work.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 17:12:26 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: bill Subject: That's my favorite ride at Disneyland Message:

Pirates of the Caribbean; Isn't it the greatest ride?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:58:37 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Joe Subject: Joe, you're making me laugh Message:

Although, I still believe that Michael Dettmers may be incorrect or ''was out of the packing heat'' loop when it comes to M's security. I just do not believe his security people have never carried firearms. Didn't M use firearms? Curious and snoopy, too Love Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 15:16:34 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: bill Subject: Pirates of the Caribean Sea Message:

Columbian drug operations involving m? Is that what you are talking about here, Bill? This might connect to my first brief encounter with premies almost 20 years ago.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:19:50 (GMT) From: salam Email: None To: bill Subject: Well I hope he gets kidnapped Message:

that will make some news. I wonder if EV will pay his ransom or let it go. (thanks heaven someone else did it) :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 13:24:57 (GMT) From: JTF Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Why was the Holy Family SCHISM kept secret by M? Message:

Of course, I now have my own theory on the matter, i.e. ignorance is bliss but really.....! How very insulting that was that rawat never really came out and spoke directly about this. I was always around large cult communities and while there were rumors and mumbling.. there were no definite facts. rawat could have come out and spoke of it. After all, we knew who HE was. When Dunga Ji had her brain aneurism years later, he spoke of it directly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:43:02 (GMT) From: Francesca Email: None To: JTF Subject: And I was caught in the crossfire of that Message:

When I think back on it, the whole thing was awful. I don't think I had knowledge for much more than a year before the whole thing began to unravel. As a new recruit to Bhole Ji's band, I arrived at Camp Joan Meier in Ventura County, a summer camp for disabled children that the band was renting in the off season. I thought it was bliss! The whole family in and out, Mahatmas in and out, especially Charanand. Maharaji only ended up coming once before the big blowup. So there I was in the middle of the whole thing, with not so much as a clue. And no one was telling us anything at first, not even Bhole Ji, Mata Ji, or Bal Bhagwan Ji. They came out with it eventually, but everyone involved was so disingenuous as to what was expected or being asked of us. For over a year, DLM or M just kept sending people to pass on the message that we were supposed to leave, but we didn't believe Mission honchos or people sent by Mission honchos so we blew them off. When we lived in Thousand Oaks Michael Paragon was sent to try to convince us, Milky Cole, and others. They were all nice folks, but geez! We would eventually stop feeding these people so that they would leave. My sister had friends that were doing service at the res in Malibu, and they were all telling her that Marahaji wanted us to leave his family (except Raja, of course). But M would say nothing to us directly. However DLM heavies came one night and forcibly took our music equipment because it was purchased by DLM. Then had two poor ashram premies in a car outside our apartment complex, bored, staking the place out. Even when M came to our apartment complex to talk to us once he didn't mention the controversy, or ask us to leave. All he did was try to charm us into being gopis, and some of us (myself included) readily complied. It was a strange squeeze. All this supposedly 'official' pressure and nothing from the big cheeze. The pressure from the other side was that, although BBJ wasn't saying anything, he was subtly and then not-so-subtly starting his own religion and setting himself up as a guru. He didn't whop it on us at first because people would have bailed on that trip as well (me included). BBJ used to come to our rehearsal hall and even give satsang in our tiny living room in Venice, CA. There was so much baloney going on that it was a pretty strange and stressful time. Having my life somewhat at the mercy of buzz and innuendo should have told me that I ought to go and get a life, but somehow I was just rebellious (a rebel without a cause) and didn't heed the call.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 10:59:11 (GMT) From: JTF Email: None To: Francesca Subject: And I was caught in the crossfire of that/also.... Message:

....very insulting to you and the others right in the middle of their bickering. Thanks for that interesting perspective.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 08:26:20 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Captain Rawat Message:

Just when you think you’ve got the Master of our age sussed, he surprises you with another face of his divine being. I’ve seen him on the stage, wearing his papiermache Krishna crown, emblazoned with glass jewels. I’ve heard him reciting his embarrassingly crap poetry to audiences who would have wept and smiled blissfully if he’d been reading the label of an detergent bottle. I’ve seen him stand before a graph, pointing to the big column and saying, “They ate so much dahl in India, I had to shorten the column or it would have gone off the top of the slide. And for the next one, I did a pie chart of who everybody’s favorite musician is. You see that massive green slice? That’s Peter Frampton.”. But I have never seen him in his favorite incarnation- “Captain Rawat”. Captain Rawat wears a hat with gold braid. He comes through the crew gate at the airport. He likes to hang out with the other pilots and talk jets with them. However, he doesn’t want them to know about his secret life as Perfect Master and Lord of the Universe in person. He doesn’t want them to know he posses the “Knowledge of All Knowledges” like his predecessors, Jesus and Buddha. He also doesn’t want them to know that the payments on his private jet are wrung out of his followers around the world by inspired fundraisers, massive entrance fees to his rambling, meaningless lectures, and outrageous fortunes to sleep in the Camp Aussiecult dormitory tents. Premies travelling with him, are under strict instructions to address him only as “Captain Rawat”, and never embarrass him by mentioning his secret identity. This paranoia is taken to ridiculous proportions when “Captain Rawat” is accompanied by a co-pilot who isn’t one of the chosen ones, and doesn’t worship him, or work for free. “Captain Rawat’s” secret identity has to be kept from the co-pilot at all times. He doesn’t want his aviation-pals to find he’s moonlighting with an evening job as Lord of the Universe and Jesus come again. The Perfect Master and those great souls that surround him, become extremely agitated if Captain Rawat is in ever in danger of revealing his secret identity. It is as if the world was watching Clark Kent change into Superman. This is why there is extreme paranoia about “Captain Rawat’s” face and job description appearing in magazines and newspapers. Captain Rawat is going to be extremely pissed of very soon. I wonder if Jesus had the same sort of problems? Anth the Plane Spotter

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 02:22:25 (GMT) From: la-ex Email: None To: AJW Subject: Captain Rawat/Getting this info out... Message:

Anth-I was wondering if there are certain aviation outlets that would find this information about captain rawats 'other life' amusing or interesting... any possibilities that you know about?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 10:34:03 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: la-ex Subject: Captain Rawat/Getting this info out... Message:

Hi la-ex, I guess if one were inclined, one could get a picture of the jet, Captain Rawat in his Krishna suit, and another of him in his Saville Row suit, write a little press release, (or copy the above piece) look up the addresses of some aviation magazines, (Writers and Artists Year Book or Magazine shelves), and send it out. I'd never dream of doing anything like that myself of course. I'm far too busy with charitable work. Anth who is a good boy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 12:30:45 (GMT) From: Ulf Email: None To: AJW Subject: Captain Rawat Message:

AJW wrote : Captain Rawat is going to be extremely pissed of very soon. Ulf : please tell us more ,, when and how ,, ???

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 13:03:37 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Ulf Subject: Captain Rawat Message:

Hi Ulf, He's going to be pissed off because there are some reporters doing stories on him, Jagdeo, and the cult right now. I know that journalists on three continents are interested. So far it looks like they may all do stories. (Shit, I might even do one myself.) Last time this happened, the cult freaked, and hit the Sunday Express with threats of legal action. Then Jonathon Cainer showed up offering to work for the paper. Then the story was spiked 'for commercial reasons'. So, this time, the powder is being kept dry. The cult can send their threats after the stories are in print. Anth, laughing all the way to the newsagents.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:52:56 (GMT) From: Cynthia-Scorpio-I Email: None To: AJW Subject: Security Update Message:

Now, Anth, you must be more discrete! EPO Security Headquarters is quite concerned about any leaks about media attention. Please stand by for future instructions. Yes, we all have very curious minds. But, Anth, you must curb your excitement about the media attention, which as we both know is not happening, right, Anth? Okay, the Security Dept. simply wants to send a little notice to take care, but by all means keep having fun. Sincerely, Cynthia-Scorpio-I Chief of Security EPO Headquarters, US, Europe, Canada Signing off..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 20:10:41 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Cynthia-Scorpio-I Subject: Watch this space Message:

for too long and your eyes go funny. No Cynthia, you're quite right. I'm making it all up. I haven't spoken to anyone from the press for over a year. I'm sitting by my phone waiting for it to ring, because I keep hearing from other people who are being contacted by the press. But not me. So I feel quite left out. It's not fair. I want to be interviewed too. The same thing happened with the telly. They interviewed my old pal Syd, but didn't want to talk to me. Infamy Infamy They've all got it infamy. Anth the Frankie Howard.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 08:03:36 (GMT) From: Loaf Email: None To: AJW Subject: infamy... infamy !!! Message:

Hi Anth I think you will find it was Kenneth Williams me.......pedantic ? Maybe - but this explains why you have NEVER been interviewed. Carry on up the Cult ! Loaf (Charles Hawtrey)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 10:45:49 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Loaf Subject: Oooooer Missuz. (ott) Message:

You're dead right Loaf. Bazza is a bit of vintage comedian freak too. I fell asleep about half past two this morning listening to a CD of the Goon Show from 1957. It's obvious this is where loads of Monty Python came from. Anth (sound effect door banging, crockery breaking) just walked into the cupboard by mistake. (They work better on TV) Now where's me tickling stick?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:46:48 (GMT) From: salam Email: None To: AJW Subject: Am digging Message:

3 foot under so far. Oh by the way, is this story going to be out before Amaroo campaign 2001. I though it might make a good story in the local Ipswich or Brisbane papers. Zo u like to tell me vat iz appinin on the secret channel.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 18:27:58 (GMT) From: Steve Quint Email: the_avenger55@hotmail.com To: salam Subject: Happy Valentine's Day Message:

I have an early valentine's day gift for you - I found a picture of your lard planning his next phase. Here it is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 11:04:27 (GMT) From: Know It All Email: None To: AJW Subject: It's all a charade Message:

His entire life is a charade. This is just another example. I hope the cultmeisters are sharpening their PR blades because they're going to have a great deal of explaining to do to the public and the premies worldwide in the very near future. KIA

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 10:43:21 (GMT) From: Jethro Email: None To: AJW Subject: Racist Indians Message:

For some reason, and I know this has nithing to do woth your post, I remember one of the Florida(Kissami?) programs when he was telling us(it may havebeen in the top-secret ashram premie meeting with him)that many Indians are so racist thatwhen they have Western visitors around fior a meal they are very polite an nice, but after the guests leave the Indians actually throw away the plates and cutlery the Westerners have used, for fear of becoming contaminated. I wonder what they do about the.......never mind. Excuse me expelling this memory now, but it just popped up as I was reading your post. Later Jethro

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 03:41:24 (GMT) From: Pat Conlon Email: None To: Jethro Subject: Jethro and cq: Racist Indians Message:

The story that you tell is not indicative so much of racism as castism. Mr Rawat probably used the word inaccurately as he often mangles the English language. You and cq asked me to elaborate on something that I mentioned in passing in a thread belwo. This seems like a good place to post it. When I lived in Durban (where 90% of the premies are Indian) I once walked into the kitchen of my Indian friend's house when I was visiting him. I wondered why the matriarch and her daughters in law suddenly seemed nervous and uncomforatble. My friend later told me it was because everything in the kitchen would now have to be thrown away because a ''casteless'' person had entered it. The more religious and conservative Indians (such as the Gujerati banya caste who represent most of the premies in the Indian diaspora) regard all food preparation as a religious ritual and the kitchen and all the utensils are blessed by a Brahmin. A bit like Muslim halal and Jewish kosher. It turned out that because I was a premie and the community co-ordinator I was regarded by the matriarch (of the kitchen that I had despoiled) as an honorary banya and she did not throw everything out. However the older generation of Gujerati banyas were not only castist but racist. They would not allow non-Gujeratis or non-Banyas to become premies. Whites were allowed reluctantly. Two of us in the ashram spoke Afrikaans and Zulu and decided to propagate to the Coloureds (mixed race people whose main language is Afrikaans) and Zulus. Soon the National Co-ordinator arrived and told me that he had been instructed by Maharaji to tell me not propagate outside of the Gujerati and white groups. I resigned and came to the USA where in 1981 I was called to a special meeting with John Horton and told that Maharaji had told him to tell me to stop propagating to fags. But that's another story.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 16:59:56 (GMT) From: Steve Quint Email: the_avenger55@hotmail.com To: Pat Conlon Subject: Doctors In Bad Form Message:

I second JHB's request. I've had the thought recently that the premie M.D.'s, and I know three, had a special responsibility which they neglected, to ensure the mental health of premies. One of the three M.D.'s was my doctor at the time of my big psychotic breakdown in 1979 where I could have died. It was Steve Ayre in Montreal. The other two doctors were John Horton and a guy who I met in Denver. That was a few months before the aforementioned breakdown and his advice was to 'pray to Guru Maharaj Ji'. These guys are a disgrace to the medical profession. Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 16:48:57 (GMT) From: JHB Email: None To: Pat Conlon Subject: Tell the Story!!!! Message:

I resigned and came to the USA where in 1981 I was called to a special meeting with John Horton and told that Maharaji had told him to tell me to stop propagating to fags. But that's another story. But a story that definitely demands to be told! John the nosy

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 17:52:44 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Pat Conlon Subject: Pat, Tell the Story!!!! Please?? nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 16:34:10 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Pat Conlon Subject: Pat - racism and sexism - this is important Message:

Hi Pat - You wrote: Two of us in the ashram spoke Afrikaans and Zulu and decided to propagate to the Coloureds (mixed race people whose main language is Afrikaans) and Zulus. Soon the National Co-ordinator arrived and told me that he had been instructed by Maharaji to tell me not propagate outside of the Gujerati and white groups. I resigned and came to the USA where in 1981 I was called to a special meeting withJohn Horton and told that Maharaji had told him to tell me to stop propagating to fags.But that's another story. I know you keep saying 'that's another story' (and it's obviously a long one which you may not be prepared to tell yet), but I would like to hear it, and I'm sure everyone else here would too. On another subject re the kitchen thing - DLM used to have that rule in the ashrams for some reason - only the housemother was allowed to go into the kitchen. The rationale was that it 'kept the vibration clear'. I think this rule came from Mata Ji - now I see where she got the idea (I guess.) Take care, Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 18:41:16 (GMT) From: Pat Conlon Email: None To: Katie Subject: Katie, Cythia, JHB and Steve: I'll tell it Message:

I've got no problems telling that story. I just like to think about it and get the details right. I waited for a while to post the Indian racism story because each version I wrote just seemed so long-winded because I wanted to put it in context. Eventually I kept it short but it lost a lot of its punch. I don't have to go into so much background detail about the homophobic story because it's set in USA but what was happening in SF in those days was unique in the premie world and I think the Haight hippie fag world is also a strange world for most of you. But I'll tell it soon.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 20:07:03 (GMT) From: Patrick C Email: None To: Pat Conlon Subject: To cut a long story short.... Message:

I came to SF in 78. I was expecting a lot of queer premies and was shocked to find none (except for the closet cases in the ashram and they didn't like playing rude) so I put an ad in a fag paper asking where all the queer premies were. By 1981 there was a community of premie fags in the Haight of about 30. One day I got a phone call from one of the brothers in the Miraloma ashram to say that John Horton wanted to ''interview'' me. The gist of the ''interview'' was that I had been indentified as the ring-leader of the fag premies and I was told: ''Maharaj Ji does not approve of the gay lifestyle and he especially disapproves of a gay community separate from the main community.'' By this time I had met Charles and we were pulling away from the premie fags anyway as they did not respect our monogamy so I did not put up a fight. Epilog: Only 4 of those 30 odd Haight fag premies are still alive, Charles and I, who escaped the plague by being monogamous and two other guys who are not well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 07:08:57 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Patrick C Subject: News to me/also re HIV infection rates. Message:

I was living at Miraloma in 1981, and I never heard anything about M disaproving of the gay lifestyle or that gays shouldn't live 'separate' (whatever that means) from the rest of the community. What was it that Horton thought you were doing that you weren't supposed to be doing? What I did hear, about that same time, was Dennis Murphy, who had been Maharaji's cook, say that Maharaji told homophobic jokes, and made fun of gay people, which has also been confirmed by Michael Dettmers. And regarding AIDS, you know, lots of people who were 'monogamous' also god AIDs. It only takes once, you know. Also, the increased infection rates in SF are very small increases, after the infection rate has fallen every single year for the past 10 years. Also, it appears that most of the increase is in the minority communities, especially among African Americans.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:59:39 (GMT) From: Pat Conlon Email: None To: Joe Subject: Joe Message:

The ''interview'' with John Horton was quite strange. There were times when I felt that I was being interviewed by my Brother Superior when I lived in a monastery. The Bro Sup used to regularly question us about our ''purity'' meaning celibacy. Being a foot-in-mouth kind of guy I would go into details. One day it dawned on me that Bro Sup was getting his jollies from my discussion of my sexual peccadilloes. Well, he was a hunk, a former rugby player, so I turned up the heat. When I left the order he did too but he was straight and eventually married. JH also seemed to be very curious about details not sexually but I think he could not resist his psychiatric inquisitiveness. So I turned up the heat for him too and went into excruciating detail. (He'd never heard of handball before.) The gist of his message to me from Capt Rawat was that his boss knew all about the Haight fags and used to call us ''hijras'' (East Indian berdaches)and make sneering jokes about us. JH told me that Rawat seriously disapproved of the gay lifestyle and wanted the fags intergrated into the main community and that we were not allowed to have separate satsangs anymore. When I told the fags at the next fag satsang they all laughed and had an orgy after arti. Chuck and I would always leave before the pants came off. The is also an increase in the other STD infection rates among young gays who have never seen the horrible way the old fags died in the 80s and have taken to barebacking.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 23:42:32 (GMT) From: JHB Email: None To: Patrick C Subject: To cut a long story short.... Message:

Patrick, Although short, that was a very moving story. Maharaji's involvement simply stinks, but the reality of what happened to the SF gay community from the AIDS epidemic is here for all to see. John the knows little about gay people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:59:33 (GMT) From: Pat Conlon Email: None To: JHB Subject: Thanks John, it has taken SF many years to recover Message:

from the decimation of its gay community. Sadly, since the cloud of mourning lifted in the past few years, young fags have become careless and the AIDS infection rate is rising once again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 22:39:19 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Pat Conlon Subject: Thanks Patrick Message:

It wasn't until years after Butch and others died that I even heard about it, because I lost contact with most premies soon after I left the cult. Other than Joy, I really didn't have any premie friends in San Francisco, although I did have some friends in other communities with whom I kept in contact. But that all left the cult shortly thereafter and so that was that. I really didn't want any contact with premies. I wanted to put that life behind me and pretend it never happened. It's also homophobia for the increased infection rates among African Americans. The African American community is so homophobic, that many gay black men continue to have sex with women, and hence the infection rate among black women is very high. Plus, most of the 'safe sex' messages have been directed towards white men, who also have better medical care, etc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 21:09:15 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Pat Conlon Subject: Pat, Thanks for your story... Message:

I've done extensive reading about the AIDS thing, and I can't imagine the depth of sorrow that has taken place. Sad, about the young folk who aren't protecting themselves. There's something about all youth that blinds them from mortality. I always had the impression that M was a bigot, especially against gay people. Your story about the gay premie community should be placed into some sort of section regarding M's attitudes toward not only gays, but women, people of color. It seems to me that in the US the communities were pretty white. Thank god???? you have remained safe from AIDS. My husband, who spent a lot of time in Norther Vermont this fall and winter befriended a woman who's in her last stages of AIDS. She's remarkable and strong (not physically). It's amazing how much a dying person can teach us. Love, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 13:18:38 (GMT) From: Steve Quint Email: the_avenger55@hotmail.com To: Jethro Subject: Racist Indians Message:

Thank you for bringing this up. I've seen almost every video issued by Visions and for some reason that particular statement never sat well with me and bothered me more than pretty much any other statement I've heard from his locust lips. Out of curiosity, does anyone else find this statement extremely strange. Something must be in the air. There are some very disturbing stories that have just come out here, in particular Anth's story of Daya and electricity and others of that ilk. I'm shocked and amazed that Anth and others have reported that 'the kids are alright'. Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 09:43:38 (GMT) From: Pat Conlon Email: None To: AJW Subject: Captain Rawat Message:

What a clever post, Anth. Smart, crisp - almost like Moses coming down the mountain with the tablets of stone, inspired. Clark Kent/Superman. He'd love to be called Captain of the Universe but might settle for Captain America. Interestingly, if you read about his Radhasoami competitors in India, you will find that most of them are either Post Masters, Station Masters or School Masters. Cross my heart. Ask Charles if you don't believe me. If he had not trampled on so many people to become the Master we would probably all just dismiss him as a silly billy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 08, 2001 at 22:45:09 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Maharaji Abuses, Continued Message:

There is pretty amazing thread below, started by Suzanne, chronicling a lot of abusive things Maharaji has done to his followers. Everything from making them eat Ex-Lax, to forbidding that devotees visit a dying ex-premie because he was pissed at them. So, I have a question. Is anybody aware of anything abusive being done TO Maharaji by his followers or even others, besides getting that pie in the face in Detroit? I remember one time at an ashram meeting in Miami, Maharaji sat his fat ass into one of those Ergon Chairs he liked so much and it collapsed and pitched forward. It looked like a practical joke, but it wasn't. I was CC in Miami at the time and I was horrified. Does anybody know of anything?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 10:01:46 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Joe Subject: He got tomatoes in France at a public program Message:

in 1973. Maybe eggs too. He said a few words, and finally left after 5 minutes. I was there. And feeling sad. There was a team of anarchists there, and security could do anything about it. I also heard of some sort of revolution in Venezuela or Argentina, where premies didn't accept the entrance fees for a program in the late 80s.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 16:42:43 (GMT) From: Paul Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Hi JM. Just what you'd expect from the French. nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index