Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Oct 15, 2001 To: Oct 22, 2001 Page: 2 of: 5


Vicki -:- Marolyn's letter -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:18:41 (EDT)
__ Francesca -:- Here it is -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:47:16 (EDT)
__ __ Vicki -:- Thank you (nt) -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 04:06:26 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- It's in the archives -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:36:03 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Hey, I'm lost! Where's the search engine? -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:44:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ Francesca -:- Here's the search engine -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:48:33 (EDT)

Scott T. -:- Behind the Terror (OT) -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:03:57 (EDT)
__ Sigmund -:- When was the last time Osama bin laden?(nt) -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 22:34:24 (EDT)
__ bill -:- I dont feel any terror. Anthrax bores me. [nt] -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:04:12 (EDT)
__ __ don -:- Re: I dont feel any terror. Anthrax bores me. -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 06:43:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ JohnT -:- don't work on me neither (ot) -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 17:07:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I don't think it's working either(ot) -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 00:02:31 (EDT)

Jim -:- Is sarcasm abuse? -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 17:56:17 (EDT)
__ Deborah -:- Interesting question: Lawyer style -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 00:13:28 (EDT)
__ cq -:- Depends on the motives ... -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 11:30:20 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- EVERYONE'S a 'manipulator' -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 13:44:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ cq -:- a way to deal with manipulation -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 16:17:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: EVERYONE'S a 'manipulator' -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 14:19:02 (EDT)
__ Mike Finch -:- Re: Is sarcasm abuse? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 09:23:30 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Re: Is sarcasm abuse? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:53:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Is sarcasm abuse? -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 13:03:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: Is sarcasm abuse? -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 17:32:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Is sarcasm abuse? -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 18:19:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yes, sure, BUT -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 18:50:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Yes, sure, BUT -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 10:18:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- It is splitting hairs Mike -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 18:49:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Hey Presto -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 19:14:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Dermot, italics etc -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 19:43:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Cheers Pat -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:02:05 (EDT)
__ __ Pat:C) -:- That's a tricky one, Mike -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 14:50:10 (EDT)
__ Patrick Wilson -:- Re: Is sarcasm abuse? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 06:03:04 (EDT)
__ __ Zelda -:- Patrick Wilson-funny -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 21:36:46 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Re: Is sarcasm abuse? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:57:11 (EDT)
__ __ Francesca :) -:- GREAT POST, Patrick! good points [nt] -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 15:40:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ berni -:- Yes good points Patrick -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 07:46:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, I don't agree -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 14:03:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ berni -:- Re: No, I don't agree -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 06:37:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, I agree with THAT -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 11:41:40 (EDT)
__ CW -:- No ,but what you do is. -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:29:57 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- ?? -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:27:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ CW -:- Re: ?? -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 22:33:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Patrick Wilson -:- Re: ?? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 06:17:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ CW -:- Re: ?? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 14:33:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- CW - Misinformation on EPO???? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 18:47:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Your Master is a liar -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:27:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- I don't buy that argument -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 22:41:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ CW -:- Re: I don't buy that argument -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 14:23:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Full of bull....yawnnn [nt] -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:33:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Put up or shut up -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:32:35 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ CW -:- Is your name Jim? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 19:21:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- No: Is your real name Michael?? -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 01:58:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ CW -:- Re: No: Is your real name Michael? -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 04:49:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- *** AMAZING STRAIGHT ANSWER FROM CAT! *** -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 05:05:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SC -:- What? -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 23:40:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Isn't he something, John? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:58:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ CW -:- Re: Isn't he something, John? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 19:25:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- A textbook example of BAD sarcasm -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 19:58:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ CW -:- OK Clever Dick -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 22:34:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Suitable for framing -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 00:46:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Certainly a compliment ... -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:13:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ CW -:- Re: Certainly a compliment ... -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 10:01:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Perhaps Pussy's one of the alcoholics... -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 03:36:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ CW -:- Re: Perhaps Pussy's one of the alcoholics... -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 04:53:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Cat, can't you see yourself? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 14:46:13 (EDT)
__ Mom -:- Jim: a thumbnail sketch -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:21:37 (EDT)
__ __ Mummiji -:- Another 'Mom'miji!!! -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:26:27 (EDT)
__ michael donner -:- Re: Is sarcasm abuse? -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:51:03 (EDT)
__ __ The Lowest form of Wit? nt -:- Re: Is sarcasm abuse? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 08:38:40 (EDT)
__ __ bill -:- Better to be funny [nt] -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:05:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Like your anthrax joke, you mean? [nt] -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 01:52:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ bill -:- Re: Like your anthrax joke, you mean? -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 20:54:37 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Like your anthrax joke, you mean? -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 00:27:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Is there anything really left to say Scott -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:43:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Is there anything really left to say Scott -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:42:58 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- With all due respect, Mike ... -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:05:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- So, were you asking a question, -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:03:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- False dilemna? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 17:02:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Very dry and droll, Scott -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 03:43:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- My genes control me after all. -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:17:43 (EDT)
__ Pat:C) -:- No, just unfriendly -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:40:22 (EDT)
__ __ JohnT -:- Sandy -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:47:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Sandy is real - I agree -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 17:10:33 (EDT)
__ Zelda -:- Re: from a recovering Sacastic -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:26:36 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Holy cow! -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:38:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ Zelda -:- Re: oh ..ok -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:02:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Great stuff, Zelda but, like Jim,... -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:46:51 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Zelda -:- Re: in summary -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:59:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: in summary- I thought so -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:06:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- 'Bullying' -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:57:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I'll go a little further -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 17:08:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: 'Bullying' - Ditto, Nige -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 03:49:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Re: 'Bullying' - Ditto, Nige -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 00:35:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Zelda -:- Re: in summary- I thought so -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:35:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Jim's a pussy -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:47:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Zelda -:- Re: Jim's a pussy -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:07:21 (EDT)

Nigel -:- Relative Truths (long but not ot) -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 16:05:30 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- Can it be said? It CAN'T be said! -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 15:10:36 (EDT)
__ __ Moley -:- Spot on John T ! -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 20:53:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Derrida exposed. -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 00:51:50 (EDT)
__ Loaf -:- Re: Relative Truths (long but not ot) -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 01:54:35 (EDT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Will ring later.. [nt] -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:38:00 (EDT)
__ Zelda -:- oh nigel..... -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:20:04 (EDT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Re: oh nigel..... -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:45:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ Zelda -:- ya i know your right. + thanks [nt] -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 21:32:01 (EDT)
__ Pat:C) -:- Most enjoyable read. Thanks, Nige -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:56:05 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Can't U C Nige's agenda, Pat? -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:32:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- You're joking, right...? -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:37:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sure [nt] -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 03:18:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: Can't U C Nige's agenda, Pat? -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:46:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Pat, you can't DO that! -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:51:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- UK pissed or US pissed? -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:55:31 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Cogito -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 18:18:08 (EDT)
__ __ bill -:- Re: Cogito -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:29:19 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Thanks, Nige -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 18:13:44 (EDT)
__ __ bill -:- Re: Thanks, Nige -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:59:59 (EDT)
__ __ __ bill -:- back on sunday [nt] -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 01:03:05 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Socialism as religion, and hypnosis (ot) -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 23:37:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Socialism is a poor substitute -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 20:30:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Nigel rattling -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 19:21:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Fuckin' hell, John - you've blown my secret... -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 21:02:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ bill-Hmmm, I will have to get some -:- Nigel is regularly quite interesting [nt] -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 20:48:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Socialism: Christianity without Christ -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 04:15:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Well, old leftie that I am.. -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 10:13:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Careful Nigel, -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:54:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Never in a million years... -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 21:08:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: Well, old leftie that I am.. -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 13:53:50 (EDT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Not too lazy - I tried linking twice.. -:- Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 18:45:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ berni -:- lock this thread & ban this poster -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 07:56:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Hi, berni.. -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 00:15:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Ah yes,'String Band'..acidic memories! [nt] -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:30:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- We're all still here... -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:52:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ berni -:- Hi Nigel and thanks... -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 06:13:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, Berni, OT's fine -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:00:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ berni -:- Re: No, Berni, OT's fine -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 15:26:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- maybe, maybe not -:- Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 15:45:16 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ berni -:- A thing of beauty is a joy forever -:- Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 06:37:35 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- not knowing what's known -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 14:43:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ berni -:- Re: not knowing what's known -:- Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 16:52:20 (EDT)


Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:18:41 (EDT)
From: Vicki
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Marolyn's letter
Message:
Jim, would it be possible for you to post a link to Marolyn's letter? I can't find it. Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:47:16 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Vicki
Subject: Here it is
Message:

[ Marolyn's letter ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 04:06:26 (EDT)
From: Vicki
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Thank you (nt)
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:36:03 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Vicki
Subject: It's in the archives
Message:
but I'll look, Vicki

(now I have to remember how to find the damn things -- the arvchives, that is)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:44:02 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey, I'm lost! Where's the search engine?
Message:
Sorry, Vicki, but I can't find the search engine and I don't have the same hard drive I had back when I had the letter myself.

Anyone have the letter? Anyone know where that search engine is?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:48:33 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Here's the search engine
Message:
I just happened to have it bookmarked! :~)
[ Search Engine ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:03:57 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Behind the Terror (OT)
Message:
Behind the Terror: Understanding the Enemy, tonite on the Discovery Channel at 8 PM.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 22:34:24 (EDT)
From: Sigmund
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: When was the last time Osama bin laden?(nt)
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:04:12 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I dont feel any terror. Anthrax bores me. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 06:43:39 (EDT)
From: don
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Re: I dont feel any terror. Anthrax bores me.
Message:
u r simply 2 kewl 4 4um 7
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 17:07:39 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: don
Subject: don't work on me neither (ot)
Message:
I can tell the anthrax campaign is spreading fear and loathing but to be frank, it just isn't working on me. Why should it? Car accidents kill a dozen people a day here in the UK. The anthrax risk is minimal, it's almost purely psychological warfare -- juju. And juju just don't work on some of us, some of the time!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 00:02:31 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: I don't think it's working either(ot)
Message:
In fact, quite the opposite... it's like taking an innoculation (small dose of something that makes you immune to the larger onslaught). It's taking us awhile to get up to speed on this security thing. Thanks for the practice, whoever you are. Duh!

(But the point in posting the reference is that it's an excellent documentary, including pictures taken *inside* the WTC during the attack. I have no idea how they got those. If it comes on again, be sure and give it a look.)

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 17:56:17 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Is sarcasm abuse?
Message:
In a thread below, Mike Finch brought up the supposedly hard time he got when he first posted here. In fact he used my own words as an example of 'abuse'. I've looked at this further and believe that, while I may have been sarcastic, I was far from abusive. Indeed, I think that there is most certainly a role for sarcasm in confronting premies and premie thinking. Sarcasm alerts the mind to the prospect there is no room for a reasonable or respectable alternative view. In terms of Maharaji, for instance, it is not the case that reasonable people can differ on whether or not he's a bona fide spiritual master (even assuming, as I don't, that such things exist!).

Here's Mike's initial post:

'Hi Everybody
Anth writes 'I have it on good authority that Mike is no longer a premie...'.

I am not a premie in the sense of belonging to the premie cult, which is still alive and well, unfortunately; but I still practice Knowledge.

I read this Forum with interest. I don't have the bitterness and pain that many of you clearly feel, but I certainly understand it. I may even have contributed to it, as in the past I have spoken at many events, although I always tried to be 'clean' in the sense of talking from my own feeling rather than being the mouth-piece for the party line. To what extent I succeeded, I don't know. I am truly sorry if I added to anyone's pain.

I have also noticed on this Forum that attitudes tend to harden as time goes by. There are people who post here with some positive things about M and K -- for instance, Sandy and Turner -- and they have got very negative reaction, with poisonous personal attacks. This seems to me indicative of a cult - '..if you don't think like us you have no integrity, sincerity...whatever'. I think this is a shame. I will probably get negative responses to this posting, both from you Forum activists, and from premies. I would prefer that any responses come from people with their own name and are identifiable ('Bazza' writes that I am lurking; perhaps he/she is lurking behind the 'Bazza' handle, unless 'Bazza' is really your name, which I doubt !)

So I am not a 'premie' in the cultish sense; nor am I an 'ex-premie'. Whether there is anything you can take from M and K that is positive and worthwhile is a question that, for me, can only be answered privately and personally.

Sorry I don't fit in to either camp ! I am anticipating negative reaction, but I don't really care. I am standing on my own two feet, and enjoying it !! I certainly care if in the past I personally added to any of your pain, bitternes, whatever; and as I have already said, if so I am sorry.

I wish all of you well -- and if that sounds wishy-washy, so be it !

-- Mike'

And here's my reply. Yes, it's sarcastic. But that certainly doesn't mean it's 'abusive', does it? As I try to explain now (bold text), sarcasm is a critical tool in confronting the unrealistic views of the cult. If anyone was 'abusive' it was Mike in that he was criticizing me from a cult-friendly perspective:

'I am not a premie in the sense of belonging to the premie cult, which is still alive and well, unfortunately; but I still practice Knowledge.

Well that certainly puts you a cut above us sheep here. see, Mike, it sounds like you, unlike me for instance, are a true individual. Like the Marlboro man, maybe. People like me, eh, we're nothing. Like I say, sheep. Common. You, on the other hand, well you know all about how many levels of logic? Wow! Too much, man. Too fucking much.

Okay, I admit, Mike's post bugged me. He starts off saying that HE's not in any cult while those of us who ridiculed Sandy and Turner (Turner??!) were. Yeah, that ticked me off. Does that mean that my response is 'abusive'? I guess if you're the kind of person who simply love sto use that word here, there and everywhere, why not? Pesonally, I think that's bizarre but then what do I know? I'm a bully, don't forget.

The thing about the logic was in reference to another post of Mike's in that same thread where he said:

Ah, Anth, shall we get into the intricacies of 3-valued logic versus 2-valued logic ?! Only joking. Leaving aside the Indian meaning of 'premie' as 'lover', by 'premie' I mean a follower of what I perceive as a cult, centered around M. I don't want to be a part of that cult, so I am not a premie in that sense. So the question for me is: Is there any part of what M is teaching that is directly relevant to me, and is not part of the cult ? My own answer is Yes. Since an 'ex-premie' seems to reject not only the premie cult, but also anything remotely good and worthwhile that M teaches, then I am not an 'ex-premie' either. Thus I am not a premie, nor an ex-premie, QED, n'est ce pas ?

I wonder if Mike still feels this way. Do you, Mike? Do you still think that you're not an ex-premie? Do you still find value in M's teachings?

You know what I think is helpful in these discussions? I think it's helpful to consider the perspective of a fair, informed outsider. Say you were talking to someone with a passingly reasonable knowledge of the Maharaji cult. What would that person think? If they knew you did whatever you did, whether you were a PAM, an instructor, an ashramie or maybe even a long-time regular, would they call you a premie? Say they could watch video footage of you in the mid seventies, for example. Would they think you were a premie?

Okay, then there's now. Would the informed outsider who, for argument's sake, thought you were once a premie, say you wre still? I don't think it's really rocket science, you know. All you have to do is look at what the person does and what they say. That'll answer it. Do you still revere Maharaji? Oh, too strong a word? How about respect him? Do you still consider him your spiritual guide? Do you go to hear him talk, live or otherwise? My point is that, while you might be ginger about the label, an outsider wouldn't have that trouble. If I knew that someone was once a moonie and I had a chance to talk with him about it all and find out what ties, if any, he still has with that cult, I'd be able to satisfy myself as to whether he was still a moonie without too much trouble.

But then, like I say, you sound like you're cut from some very special cloth the likes of which I may know nothing about.

A lot of discussion with a twist of sarcasm to make the point. Abusive? Yeah, just like a raised eyebrow can be .... to the right audience, that is.

I read this Forum with interest. I don't have the bitterness and pain that many of you clearly feel, but I certainly understand it.

Oh yeah? Tell me about that. Frankly, I'm not convinced. Prove it.

A little harsh in retrospect. Obviously, I was put off by his 'I'm-above-cultic-thinking-but-you're-not' attitude. But 'abusive'?

I may even have contributed to it, as in the past I have spoken at many events, although I always tried to be 'clean' in the sense of talking from my own feeling rather than being the mouth-piece for the party line. To what extent I succeeded, I don't know. I am truly sorry if I added to anyone's pain.

Well, Mike, that shouldn't be hard to figure out. Just get out your old satsangs. Did you ever call Maharaji the Lord, divine, the saviour, etc. in satsang? Did you ever refer to him as some sort of spiritual behemoth, a big teenage mothership come for the planet? Did you ever call his so-called 'Knowledge' divine, the purpose of life and all that? Did you ever mention 'surrender' or 'the mind' in your satsang? You know, you just might the only premie that avoided promulgating the cult programming when you gave satsang.

Then again, you may be full of shit.

Same thing, lots of tonic with a twist of lime. How could Mike have 'tried to be 'clean'' if he was a premie? Clean satsang was impossible. There was no such thing, EXCEPT, I should say, in the case of those back-of-the-hall premies who got roped into giving satsang once in a while and jsut sat there saying they didn't know what the hell was happening. THAT was clean but somehow I doubt Mike's 'intellectual satsang' qualified. Abusive?

Clean? How's that? Either you stumped for the cult or you didn't, your own self-satisfaction notwithstanding.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Abusive?

I have also noticed on this Forum that attitudes tend to harden as time goes by. There are people who post here with some positive things about M and K -- for instance, Sandy and Turner -- and they have got very negative reaction, with poisonous personal attacks. This seems to me indicative of a cult - '..if you don't think like us you have no integrity, sincerity...whatever'. I think this is a shame. I will probably get negative responses to this posting, both from you Forum activists, and from premies. I would prefer that any responses come from people with their own name and are identifiable ('Bazza' writes that I am lurking; perhaps he/she is lurking behind the 'Bazza' handle, unless 'Bazza' is really your name, which I doubt !)

Well, what should we do about this, Mike? Survey the forum posters for a median attitude and consider that fair and reasonable and everything on either side extreme? Again, I find it useful to consider the informed, fair-minded outsider. What would he think was a reasonable attitude about Maharaji? My guess is that he would think Maharaji was a toad. My guess is that he would find Maharaji's entire life to be one treacherous deception and classic cult exploitation. Don't know where that places Sandy and Turner on the spectrum but my guess is that Mr. Informed Outsider would dismiss their respect for Maharaji out of hand. Fast, strong, no hesitation, no questions asked. Some things are easy. Mr. IO would find that call one of life's easy ones.

So I'm with him. I was with you before, I was a premie, I considered all this stuff reasonable. Well I don't no more. Give me Mr. IO any day of the week. And what would he do? What would he think? He'd laugh at any suggestion that there's a 'moderate' position to be had here! This thing is a cult, Mike. Was a cult, is a cult. At least for us sheep, I mean.

I stand by it. I also stand by sarcastically 'conceding' that this all applied to us 'sheep' seeing as Mike, then at least, was pained to explain how assiduously he'd avoided the traps lesser mortals fell into.

So I am not a 'premie' in the cultish sense; nor am I an 'ex-premie'. Whether there is anything you can take from M and K that is positive and worthwhile is a question that, for me, can only be answered privately and personally.

Only 'privately and personally', huh? Okaaaaayyyyyy ... nice talking with you, Mike. Say hi to the missus.

Well, no wonder, I guess, that Mike settled into RE rather than here. Abusive?

Sorry I don't fit in to either camp ! I am anticipating negative reaction, but I don't really care. I am standing on my own two feet, and enjoying it !! I certainly care if in the past I personally added to any of your pain, bitternes, whatever; and as I have already said, if so I am sorry.

Maybe one day you'll realize that you've still got your plastic wrapper on. They're removeable, you know?

Again, does Mike now consider himself an ex-premie? He's a member of an 'ex-premie' forum, isn't he? I stand by all of it. Abusive? How?

I wish all of you well -- and if that sounds wishy-washy, so be it !

No spaces between your last letter and exclamation marks, please. Comply or the FA will have a word with you.

An attempt at lame humour. Abusive? Don't be silly!

Now Mike has already said that, in retrospect these and similar comments don't strike him as abusive.

Good for him.

My question though is about the people who would and have called this kind of sarcasm abusive. And it's this:

Are you really doing anyone any favours?

Wasn't it a good thing for Mike to have his feathers ruffled a bit? Wasn't it a good thing for Dettmers to have his feathers ruffled? Come on, let's get real here. The purpose of all this communication isn't to make people feel 'safe', is it? I sure hope not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 00:13:28 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Interesting question: Lawyer style
Message:
Hi Jim,

Are we getting a little lesson is legalese here?

You asked a question that went from the general to the specific here.

Your question, Is sarcasm Abusive? is asked in the broad or general sense of thequestion. The answer to that question, generally of course, is NO-not necessarily.

But the example that you give, addresses the specific. ie. a certain post to Mike Finch.

In any case, the line by line analogy is definitely weighted on sarcasm and cannot be called abusive at all.

So, was the accusation of you being abusive a general criticism or was it said specifically to that post? .

This qustion needs to be considered in context.

I mean, is it abusive to drill someone when they clearly do not want to answer questions. Well, maybe. Maybe not, that depends on their approach, attitude, responses to previous posts, etc. Just because someone does not want to encounter a sarcastic post does not give them carte blanche to come here and say whatever they want.

On the other hand, deserve to be abused by sarcastic posts before they have a chance to communicate. Another story. That could be seen as abusive behaviour.

In any event, whether your post was wanted or not wanted, the word 'abusive' is too strong.

My two cents,

Deborah

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 11:30:20 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Depends on the motives ...
Message:
Dealing With Manipulative People

An Excerpt from the book: In Sheep's Clothing

By George K. Simon

Two Basic Types of Aggression

There are two basic types of aggression: overt-aggression and covert-aggression. When you're determined to have something and you're open, direct and obvious in your manner of fighting, your behavior is best labeled overtly aggressive. When you're out to 'win,' dominate or control, but are subtle, underhanded or deceptive enough to hide your true intentions, your behavior is most appropriately labeled covertly aggressive. Now, avoiding any overt display of aggression while simultaneously intimidating others into giving you what you want is a powerfully manipulative maneuver. That's why covert-aggression is most often the vehicle for interpersonal manipulation.

Acts of Covert-Aggression vs. Covert-Aggressive Personalities

Most of us have engaged in some sort of covertly aggressive behavior from time to time. Periodically trying to manipulate a person or a situation doesn't make someone
a covert-aggressive personality. Personality can be defined by the way a person habitually perceives, relates to and interacts with others and the world at large. The
tactics of deceit, manipulation and control are a steady diet for covert-aggressive personality. It's the way they prefer to deal with others and to get the things they want
in life.

The Process of Victimization

For a long time, I wondered why manipulation victims have a hard time seeing what really goes on in manipulative interactions. At first, I was tempted to fault them. But
I've learned that they get hoodwinked for some very good reasons:

1.A manipulator's aggression is not obvious. Our gut may tell us that they're fighting for something, struggling to overcome us, gain power, or have their way, and
we find ourselves unconsciously on the defensive. But because we can't point to clear, objective evidence they're aggressing against us, we aren't readily validate
our feelings.

2.The tactics manipulators use can make it seem like they're hurting, caring, defending, ....almost anything but fighting. These tactics are hard to recognize as
merely clever ploys. They always make just enough sense to make a person doubt their gut hunch that they're being taken advantage of or abused. Besides, the
tactics not only make it hard for you to consciously and objectively tell that a manipulator is fighting, but they also simultaneously keep you or consciously on the
defensive. These features make them highly effective psychological weapons to which anyone can be vulnerable. It's hard to think clearly when someone has you
emotionally on the run.

3.All of us have weaknesses and insecurities that a clever manipulator might exploit. Sometimes, we're aware of these weaknesses and how someone might use
them to take advantage of us. For example, I hear parents say things like: 'Yeah, I know I have a big guilt button.' -But at the time their manipulative child is
busily pushing that button, they can easily forget what's really going on. Besides, sometimes we're unaware of our biggest vulnerabilities. Manipulators often know
us better than we know ourselves. They know what buttons to push, when and how hard. Our lack of self-knowledge sets us up to be exploited.

4.What our gut tell us a manipulator is like challenges everything we've been taught to believe about human nature. We've, been inundated with a psychology that
has us seeing everybody, at least to some degree, as afraid, insecure or 'hung-up.' So, while our gut tells us we're dealing with a ruthless conniver, our head tells
us they must be really frightened or wounded 'underneath.' What's more, most of us generally hate to think of ourselves as callous and insensitive people. We
hesitate to make harsh or seemingly negative judgments about others. We want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they have don't really harbor the
malevolent intentions we suspect. We're more apt to doubt and blame ourselves for daring to believe what our gut tells us about our manipulator's character.

Recognizing Aggressive Agendas

Accepting how fundamental it is for people to fight for the things they want and becoming more aware of the subtle, underhanded ways people can and do fight in their daily endeavors and relationships can be very consciousness expanding. Learning to recognize an aggressive move when somebody makes one and learning how to handle oneself in any of life's many battles has turned out to be the most empowering experience for the manipulation victims with whom I've worked. It's how they eventually freed themselves from their manipulator's dominance and control and gained a much needed boost to their own sense of self esteem. Recognizing the inherent aggression in manipulative behavior and becoming more aware of the slick, surreptitious ways that manipulative people prefer to aggress against us is extremely
important. Not recognizing and accurately labeling their subtly aggressive moves causes most people to misinterpret the behavior of manipulators and, therefore, fail to
respond to them in an appropriate fashion. Recognizing when and how manipulators are fighting with

Defense Mechanisms and Offensive Tactics

Almost everyone is familiar with the term defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are the 'automatic' (i.e. unconscious) mental behaviors all of us employ to protect
or defend ourselves from the 'threat' of some emotional pain. Mere specifically, ego defense mechanisms are mental behaviors we use to 'defend' our self-images from
'invitations' to feel ashamed or guilty about something. There are many different kinds of ego defenses and the more traditional psychodynamic) theories of personality
have always tended to distinguish the various personality types, at least in part, by the types of ego defenses they prefer to use. One of the problems with
psychodynamic approaches to understanding human behavior is that they tend to depict people as most always afraid of something and defending or protecting
themselves in some way; even when they're in the act of aggressing. Covert-aggressive personalities (indeed all aggressive personalities) use a variety of mental
behaviors and interpersonal maneuvers to help ensure they get what they want. Some of these behaviors have been traditionally thought of as defense mechanisms.

While, from a certain perspective we might say someone engaging in these behaviors is defending their ego from any sense of shame or guilt, it's important to realize that
at the time the aggressor is exhibiting these behaviors, he is not primarily defending (i.e. attempting to prevent some internally painful event from occurring), but rather
fighting to maintain position, gain power and to remove any obstacles (both internal and external) in the way of getting what he wants. Seeing the aggressor as on the
defensive in any sense is a set-up for victimization. Recognizing that they're primarily on the offensive mentally prepares a person for the decisive action they need to
take in order to avoid being run over. Therefor, I think it's best to conceptualize many of the mental behaviors (no matter how 'automatic' or 'unconscious' they may
appear) we often think of as defense mechanisms as offensive power tactic because aggressive personalities employ them primarily to manipulate, control and achieve
dominance over others. Rather than trying to prevent something emotionally painful or dreadful from happening, anyone using these tactics is primarily trying to ensure
that something they want to happen does indeed happen. Using the vignettes presented in the previous chapters for illustration, let's take a look at the principal tactics covert-aggressive personalities use to ensure they get their way and maintain a position of power over their victims:

Denial -This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they've done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they lie (to themselves as well. As others) about their aggressive intentions. This 'Who... Me?' tactic is a way of 'playing innocent,' and invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior. It's also the way the aggressor gives him/herself permission to keep right on doing what, they want to do. This denial is not the same kind of denial that a person who has just lost a loved one and can't quite bear to accept the pain and reality of the loss engages in. That type of denial really is mostly a 'defense' against unbearable hurt and anxiety. Rather, this type of denial is not primarily a 'defense' but a maneuver the aggressor uses to get others to back off, back down or maybe even feel guilty themselves for insinuating he's doing something wrong. In the story of James the minister, James' denial of his ruthless ambition is massive. He denied he was hurting and neglecting his family. He especially denied he was aggressively pursuing any personal agenda. On the contrary, he cast himself as the humble servant to a honorable cause. He managed to convince several people (and maybe even himself) of the nobility and purity of his intentions. But underneath it all, James knew he was being dishonest: This fact is borne cut in his reaction to the threat of not getting a seat on the Elders' Council if his marital problems worsened. When James learned he might not get what he was so aggressively pursuing after all, he had an interesting 'conversion' experience. All of a sudden, he decided he could put aside the Lord's bidding for a weekend and he might really need to devote more time to his marriage and family. James' eyes weren't opened by the pastor's words. He always kept his awareness high about what might hinder or advance his cause. He knew if he didn't tend to his marriage he might lose what he really wanted. So, he chose (at least temporarily) to alter course.

In the story of Joe and Mary, Mary confronted Joe several times about what she felt was insensitivity and ruthlessness on his part in his treatment of Lisa. Joe denied his
aggressiveness. Be also successfully convinced Mary that what she felt in her gut was his aggressiveness was really conscientiousness, loyalty, and passionate fatherly
concern. Joe wanted a daughter who got all A's. Mary stood in the way. Joe's denial was the tactic he used to remove Mary as an obstacle to what he wanted.

Selective Inattention -This tactic is similar to and sometimes mistaken for denial It's when the aggressor 'plays dumb,' or acts oblivious. When engaging in this tactic, the
aggressor actively ignores the warnings, pleas or wishes of others, and in general, refuses to pay attention to everything and anything that might distract them from
pursuing their own agenda. Often, the aggressor knows full well what you want from him when he starts to exhibit this 'I don't want to hear it!' behaviour. By using this
tactic, the aggressor actively resists submitting himself to the tasks of paying attention to or refraining from the behavior you want him to change. In the story of Jenny
and Amanda, Jenny tried to tell Amanda she was losing privileges because she was behaving irresponsibly. But Amanda wouldn't listen. Her teacher tried to tell her
what she needed to do to improve her grade: but she didn't listen to them either. Actively listening to and heeding the suggestions of someone else are, among other
things, acts of submission. And, as you may remember from the story, Amanda is not a girl who submits easily. Determined to let nothing stand in her way and
convinced she could eventually 'win' most of her power struggles with authority figures through manipulation, Amanda closed her ears. She didn't see any need to listen. From her point of view, she would only have lost some power and control if she submitted herself to the guidance and direction offered by those whom she view as less powerful, clever and capable as herself.

Rationalization -A rationalization is the excuse an aggressor tries to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behavior. It can be an effective tactic, especially
when the explanation or justification the aggressor offers makes just enough sense that any reasonably conscientious person is likely to fall for it. It's a powerful tactic
because it not only serves to remove any internal resistance the aggressor might have about doing what they want to do (quieting any qualms of conscience they might
have) but also to keep others off their back. If the aggressor can convince you they're justified in whatever they're doing, then they're freer to pursue their goals without
interference. In the story of little Lisa, Mary felt uneasy about the relentlessness with which Joe pursued his quest to make his daughter an obedient, all-A student once
again. And, she was aware of Lisa's expressed desire to pursue counseling as a means of addressing and perhaps solving some of her problems. Although she felt
uneasy about Joe's forcefulness and sensed the impact on her daughter, she allowed herself to become, persuaded by his rationalizations that any concerned parent
ought to know his daughter better than some relatively dispassionate outsider and that he was only doing his duty by doing as much as he possibly could to 'help' his
'little girl.' When a manipulator really wants to make headway with their rationalizations they'll be sure their excuses are combined with other effective tactics. For
example, when Joe was 'selling' Mary on the justification for shoving his agenda down everyone's throat he was also sending out subtle invitations for her to feel
ashamed (Shaming her for not being as 'concerned' a parent as he was) as well as to feel guilty (guilt-tripping her) for not being as conscientious as he was pretending
to be.

Diversion -A moving target is nard to hit. When we try to pin a manipulator down or try to keep a discussion focused on a single issue or behavior we don't like, they're
expert at knowing how to change the subject, dodge the issue or in some way throw us a curve. They use distraction and diversion techniques to keep the focus off their
behavior, move us off-track, and keep themselves free to promote their self-serving hidden agendas.

..............Rather than respond directly to the issue being addressed, Amanda diverted attention to her teacher's and classmates' treatment of her. Jenny allowed Amanda
to steer: her off track. She never got a straight answer to the question. Another example of a diversion tactic can be found in the story of Don and

Al changed the subject when Don asked him if he had any plans to replace him. He focused on whether he was unhappy or not with Don's sales performance -as if
that's what Don had asked him about in the first place. He never gave him straight answer to a straight question (manipulators are notorious for this). He told him what
he thought would make Don feel less anxious and would steer him away from pursuing the matter any further. Al left feeling like he'd gotten an answer but all he -really got was the 'runaround.' Early in the current school year, I found it necessary to address my son's irresponsibility about doing his homework by making a rule that he bring his books home every night. One time I asked: 'Did you bring your books home today?' His response was: 'Guess what, Dad.

Instead of tomorrow, we're not going to have our test-until Friday.' My question was simple and direct. His answer was deliberately evasive and diversionary. He knew
that, if he answered the question directly and honestly, he would have received a consequence for failing to bring his books home. By using diversion: (and also offering a rationalization) he was already fighting with me to avoid that consequence. Whenever someone is not responding directly to an issue, you can safely assume that for some reason, they're trying to give you the slip.

Lying -It's hard to tell when a person is lying at the time they're doing it. Fortunately, there are times when the truth will out because circumstances don't bear out
somebody's story But there are times when you don't know you've been deceived until it's too late. One way to minimize the chances that someone will put one over on
you is to remember that because aggressive personalities of all types will generally stop at nothing to get what they want, you can expect them to lie and cheat. Another
thing to remember is that manipulators -covert-aggressive personalities that they are -are prone to lie in subtle, covert ways. Someone was well aware of the many ways
there are to lie when they suggested that court oaths charge a person to tell 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ' Manipulators often lie by withholding a
significant amount of the truth from you or by distorting the truth. They are adept at being vague when you ask them direct questions. This an especially slick way of
lying' omission. Keep this in mind when dealing with a suspected wolf in sheep's clothing. Always seek and obtain specific, confirmable information.

Covert Intimidation -Aggressors frequently threaten their victims to keep them anxious, apprehensive and in a one-down position. Covert-aggressives intimidate their
victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats. Guilt-tripping -This is one of the covert-aggressive's two favorite weapons (the other is shaming). It's a
special kind of intimidation tactic. One thing that aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do.
Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon. Aggressive personalities of all types use guilt-tripping so frequently and effectively as a manipulative tactic, that I believe it illustrates how fundamentally different in character they are compared to other (especially neurotic) personalities. All a manipulator has to do is suggest to the conscientious person that they don't care enough, are too selfish, etc., and that person immediately starts to feel bad. On the contrary, a conscientious person might try until they're blue in the face to get a manipulator (or any other aggressive personality to feel badly about a hurtful behavior, acknowledge responsibility, or admit wrongdoing, to absolutely no avail.

Shaming -This is the. technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make
others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to them. It's an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby
allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance. When Joe loudly proclaimed any 'good' parent would do just as he was doing to help Lisa, he subtly implied Mary would be a 'bad' parent if she didn't attempt to do the same. He 'invited' her to feel ashamed of herself. The tactic was effective. Mary eventually felt ashamed for tak-ing a position that made it appear she didn't care enough about her own daughter. Even more doubtful of her worth as a person and a parent, Mary deferred to Joe, thus enabling him to rein a position of dominance over her. Covert-aggressives are expert at using shaming tactics in the most subtle ways. Sometimes it can just be in the glances they give or the tone of voice they use. Using rhe torical comments, subtle sarcasm and other techniques, they Can invite you to feel ashamed of yourself for even daring to challenge them. I remember how Joe tried to shame me when I considered accepting the educational assessment performed by Lisa's school. He said something like: 'I'm not sure what kind of doctor you are or just what kind of credentials you have, but I'm sure you'd agree that a youngster's grades wouldn't slip as much as Lisa's for no reason. You couldn't be entirely certain she didn't have a learning disabiiity unless you did some testing, could you?' With those words, he 'invited' me to feel ashamed of myself for not at least considering doing just as he asked. If I didn't have a suspicion about what he was up to, I might have accepted this
invitation without a second thought.

Playing the Victim Role -This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstance or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke
compassion and thereby get something from another. One thing that covert-aggressive personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and hostile personalities
usually can't stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your victim you're suffering in some way, and they'll try to relieve your distress.

In, the story of Amanda and Jenny, Amanda was good at playing the victim role too. She had her mother believing that she (Amanda) was the victim of extremely unfair
treatment and the target of unwarranted hostility. I remember Jenny telling me: 'Sometimes I think Amanda's wrong when she says her teacher hates her and I hate her. But what if that's what she really believes? Can I afford to be so firm with her if she believes in her heart that I hate her?' I remember telling Jenny: ' Whether Amanda has come to believe her own distortions is almost irrelevant. She manipulates you because you believe that she believes it and allow that supposed belief to serve as an excuse for her undisciplined aggression.'

Vilifying the Victim -This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only
responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim. It enables the aggressor to better put the victim on the defensive.

Returning again to the story of Jenny and Amanda, when Amanda accuses her mother of 'hating' her and 'always saying mean things' to her, she not only invites Jenny
to feel the 'bully,' but simultaneously succeeds in 'bullying' Jenny into backing off. More than any other, the tactic of vilifying the victim is a powerful means of putting
someone unconsciously on the defensive while simultaneously masking the aggressive intent and behavior of the person using the tactic.

Playing the Servant Role -Covert-aggressives use this tactic to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It's a common tactic but
difficult to recognize. By pretending to he working hard on someone else's behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a
position of dominance over others. In the story of James (the minister) and Sean, James appeared to many to be the tireless servant. He attended more activities than he
needed to attend and did so eagerly. But if devoted service to those who needed him was his aim, how does one explain the degree to which James habitually neglected
his family? As an aggressive personality, James submits himself to no one. The only master he serves is his own ambition.. Not only was playing the servant role an
effective tactic for James, but also its the cornerstone upon which corrupt ministerial empires of all types are built. A good example comes to mind in the recent true
story of a well-known tele-evangelist who locked himself up in a room in a purported display of 'obedience' and 'service' to God. He even portrayed himself' a willing
sacrificial lamb who was prepared to be 'taken by God' if he didn't do the Almighty's bidding and raise eight million dollars. He claimed he was a humble servant, merely
heeding the Lord's will. He was really fighting to save his substantial material empire.

Another recent scandal involving a tele-evangelist resulted in his church's governance body censuring him for one year. But he told his congregation he couldn't stop his
ministry because he had to be faithful to the Lord's will (God supposedly talked to him and told him not to quit). This minister was clearly being defiant of his church's
established authority. Yet, he presented himself as a person being humbly submissive to the 'highest' authority. One hallmark characteristic of covert-aggressive
personalities is loudly professing subservience while fighting for dominance.

Seduction-Covert-aggressive personalities are adept at charming, praising, flattering or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and
surrender their trust and loyalty. Covert-aggressives are also particularly aware that people who are to some extent emotionally needy and dependent (and that includes
most people who aren't character-disordered) want approval, reassurance, and a sense of being valued and needed more than Anything. Appearing to be attentive to
these needs can be a manipulator's ticket to incredible power over others. Shady 'gurus' like Jim Jones and David Koresh seemed to have refined this tactic to and art.
In the story of Al and Don, Al is the consummate seducer. He melts any resistance you might have to giving him your loyalty and confidence. He does this by giving you
what he knows you need most. He knows you want to feel valued and important. So, he often tells you that you are. You don't find out how unimportant you really are
to him until you turn out to be in his way.

Projecting the blame (blaming others) -Aggressive personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not
only skilled at finding scapegoats, they're expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways.

Minimization -This tactic is a unique kind of denial coupled with rationalization. When using this maneuver, the aggressor attempting to assert their abusive behavior isn't really as harmful or irresponsible as someone else may, be claiming. It's the aggressor's attempt to make a molehill out of a mountain. I've presented the principal tactics that covertaggressives use to manipulate and control others. They are not always easy to recognize. Although all aggressive personalities tend to use these tactics, covert-aggressives generally use them slickly, subtly and adeptly. Anyone dealing with a covertly aggressive person will need to heighten gut-level sensitivity to the use of these tactics if they're to avoid being taken in by them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 13:44:25 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: EVERYONE'S a 'manipulator'
Message:
Shaming -This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others.

I don't know about 'fear' but self-doubt? Absolutely! That's the whole point of sarcasm, isn't it?

Anyway, I can't believe people buy these books. Everyone's a manipulator in one form or another. That's why we have these big cerebral cortex's apparently, to manipulate the hell out of each other. Indeed, I think our own natural understanding of the game is far subtler than anything this author's spelling out. In fact, by suggesting that there's a way to avoid manipulation -- as if we'd ever want to -- the book's quite naive and unrealistic.

As an aside, my mother was married to a guy once for a year. She ran away from him over his Ruben sandwich at a deli lunch counter in New York where they'd moved, her to work and support him (in lieu of pursuing her acting career which she'd studied for at Northwestern) and him to just get nuts and abuse her (BTW, that's real abuse not the other kind). Decades later this guy ran into my mother, both of them living coincidentally in Toronto. In fact, he looked her up (scary?), stopped into the store she had then and gave her a copy of his vanity-press book called 'The Manipulators'. I've got it at my place now and have a real laugh showing it to friends once in a while.

The book is completely nuts. It's a vague, rambling rant against these 'manipulators' that are everywhere, controlling our thoughts, everything. It's impossible to read but you can have a little fun browsing. Eventually you end up wondering just who these manipulators are anyway. The answer's buried in the middle of the book. The manipulators are aliens who've landed their ships on the ocean floor. What's the evidence? Well, who else but advanced alien civilizations would have the futuristic technology to set up shop like that without being detected?

Anyway, in his paranoia the guy was onto something -- the manipulators really are everywhere.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 16:17:49 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: a way to deal with manipulation
Message:
self-doubt? you mean you actually doubt yourself, Jim? How anti-American of you.

The whole point of sarcasm is WIT.

i.e. taking the piss in a way that both you and the so-called 'victim' or target of your humour can share the joke.

Unfortunately, Jim, your attempts at sarcasm are often so heavy-handed as to deny the 'victim' the chance of laughing at themselves too.

That's when sarcasm becomes mere abuse, IMO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 14:19:02 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: EVERYONE'S a 'manipulator'
Message:
Jane Austen, one of my favorites, wrote supposed social comedies filled with elegant conversations. The basis of nearly all of her dialogues is that someone wants something out of the other person and is manipulating them to a greater or lesser an extent.

Underneath all the civility and fancy words is the unspoken assumption that it's a dog eat dog world and that we make it bearable by picking our allies carefully and then refraining from manipulating them or make a contract to mutually use each other - politely of course.

People who fail to see that they are manipulative usually are passive-aggressive. As Jane Austen would have said if she were writing here: ''Words are always manipulative or at least designed to influence. If you are respectful you will be honest. If you dislike your fellow humans then you will stoop to deceit.''

I enjoyed that story about your mom's past beau. She must have been thinking with her hormones when she teamed up with that guy. I can relate to that. Ouch!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 09:23:30 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Is sarcasm abuse?
Message:
I wonder if Mike still feels this way. Do you, Mike? Do you still think that you're not an ex-premie?

No, I am an ex-premie.

Do you still find value in M's teachings?

No, but in the past I have found value in them. There is still much that he taught me which I am grateful for.

Now Mike has already said that, in retrospect these and similar comments don't strike him as abusive.

'Abusive' is time-sensitive. In my emotional state at the time, they were, if not 'abusive', at least painful. Now, I don't see them that way, but then I did. Maybe that is not bad. I agree with you that confrontation and feather-ruffling can be constructive.

But my main point is this: Is it not possible to be confrontational in a friendly way ? And if you did challenge and argue with someone who is pussy-footing around (like my early posts), but did it in a welcoming manner, wouldn't that be more useful ?

The purpose of all this communication isn't to make people feel 'safe', is it? I sure hope not.

I think you need to make a distinction: People's ideas, opinions and beliefs should not be safe, but people in themselves should be safe. Attack the ideas and the thinking for sure, using sarcasm if you wish, but not the person.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:53:03 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Re: Is sarcasm abuse?
Message:
But my main point is this: Is it not possible to be confrontational in a friendly way ? And if you did challenge and argue with someone who is pussy-footing around (like my early posts), but did it in a welcoming manner, wouldn't that be more useful ?

Easier said than done, Mike. Not to mention, unnecessarily restrictive. You know, we've already got one person pussy-footing. Does that mean the other has to as well? Is that fair? I don't think so. But even if you wanted to, how? For example, what could I have said to you then that would have registered the same impact, i.e. that your criticism of people like me who gave Sandy and Turner (again, Turner??!) a hard time as 'cultish' in the same post where you asserted that your own brand of premieness was above that was unreal and, yes, offensive?

I think you need to make a distinction: People's ideas, opinions and beliefs should not be safe, but people in themselves should be safe. Attack the ideas and the thinking for sure, using sarcasm if you wish, but not the person.

But in our example wasn't that exactly what I did? If not, please explain.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 13:03:20 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Is sarcasm abuse?
Message:
You know, we've already got one person pussy-footing. Does that mean the other has to as well?

No, the other does not have to pussy-foot, just be civil.

But even if you wanted to, how? For example, what could I have said to you then that would have registered the same impact

OK, some tongue-in-cheek suggestions:

Jim's original:

Well that certainly puts you a cut above us sheep here. see, Mike, it sounds like you, unlike me for instance, are a true individual. Like the Marlboro man, maybe. People like me, eh, we're nothing. Like I say, sheep. Common. You, on the other hand, well you know all about how many levels of logic? Wow! Too much, man. Too fucking much....

My suggestion:

Well, Mike, you sound a little superior to us, if I may say so. You make the rest of sound like sheep, and you are above the common herd (or should that be 'flock' ?). You make people like me appear to be nothing, and you know all about the many levels of logic. I find this a bit much.

Jim's original:

Then again, you may be full of shit.

My suggestion:

Then again, you may be a little confused, and need to think things through more clearly.

Jim's original:

Pleasure to meet you, Mike, I'm sure. Please accept my deepest apologies for treating your original post with anything les than the great respect and appreciation that you think it deserved.

My suggestion:

Actually, Jim, this last example of yours is pretty good. If only I could somehow get rid of the suspicion that it is sarcastic, and treat it at face value....

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 17:32:05 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Re: Is sarcasm abuse?
Message:
Mike,

The differences in your own sample vis-a-vis mine are so small now I wonder if we're not just splitting hairs a bit? You know, you say 'tomato' and I say 'tomato' kind of thing.

But I like the red and blue. How'd you do that? I saw the code for it once and might have even tried it but I can't recall how. It's a good idea, especially for detailed 'accident reconstruction'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 18:19:41 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Is sarcasm abuse?
Message:
Ok, one last attempt:

Can you see a difference between:

You are full of shit

and

Your ideas are really shitty ?

This encapsulates the difference between attacking the person (not good), and attacking the person's ideas (which is OK)?

Email me and I'll let you into the secret of red coloring versus blue coloring OK ?

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 18:50:31 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Yes, sure, BUT
Message:
Mike,

Of course I can see the difference. But you're overlooking something, I think. Sometimes you want to make the other person uncomfortable, that's the whole 'feather ruffling' dimension, I guess. When I was responding to your post back then the last thing I wanted was to leave you feeling comfortable or respected. I didn't respect you at that moment for all the reasons I've explained, all that stuff about how we were 'cultish' for being hard on Sandy and

Turner

whereas you, still a little trepedatious about cutting the dhoti strings, arguably still a premie of sorts, were beyond being trapped like that. So why wouldn't I want to sting your conscience a bit?

Besides, you draw the line at saying 'you are full of shit' (which, it might be worth reminding ourselves I didn't actually say. I said 'Then again, you may be full of shit' which, I'd argue, is a slightly different coloured crayon), but suggest it's okay to say 'your ideas are full of shit'. Others might find 'full of shit' in any respect to be too much. Doesn't this get just a little nitpicky?

And yes, I'll email you for the HTML -- but where's yoru email address?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 10:18:30 (EDT)
From: Mike Finch
Email: MikeFinch@compuserve.com
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Yes, sure, BUT
Message:
And yes, I'll email you for the HTML -- but where's yoru email address?

Actually I am on your mailing list, at least I got several broadcasted emails from you and others.

MikeFinch@compuserve.com

Doesn't this get just a little nitpicky?

Yeah, I guess so, let's move on to more meaty things.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 18:49:31 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: It is splitting hairs Mike
Message:
I mean ok if you want to be really polite about it, I guess all expression could be modified. However, if you are being SO literal about it, even the expression 'You are full of shit' doesn't actually mean the person is shit, just the person is full of shit ie full of loopy ideas or whatever.

I think the obsession (?) in aiming for a polite, moderated tone throughout doesn't take into account the fact that MANY people appreciate the diversity of expression here. For example, consider two extreme examples if you like...Katie and Jim.I equally appreciate both styles and understand that Katie is being Katie and Jim is being Jim.

In the final analysis, it's the substance that matters not so much the style.I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 19:14:59 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Hey Presto
Message:
Hey

Presto

Presto

Hmm wonder if that worked .....now can someone teach me italics ? I asked Patrick Wilson but you know him ....snob and all that .....:)..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 19:43:20 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Dermot, italics etc
Message:
You use the pointy brackets as you did for the font and color.

I=italics
U=underline
B=bold

Look at the ''Quoted message'' box below my post to see what I mean.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 07:02:05 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Cheers Pat
Message:
I thought it was that but I used little i instead of big I ....duhh

Thanks for your help !!

- Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 14:50:10 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: That's a tricky one, Mike
Message:
You said: ''People's ideas, opinions and beliefs should not be safe, but people in themselves should be safe.''

Yes, I have had all sorts of holes ripped in my ideas here and have often felt hurt but in the end I have to remind myself that this place really is always only about ideas and that I cannot be hurt as a person because I am not personally really here. The only thing that get's hurt is my ideas, vanity or delusions.

The only way that I can really hurt anyone here in cyberspace is to do what CAC did such as publishing personal addresses and employers' phone numbers and encouraging people to damage one's livelihood. Now, that's real injury. The rest I take with a pinch of salt.

But this medium leaves a lot to be desired in terms of real human communication. I look forward to the day when we have audio-visual contact. I bet we will be much nicer (and probably also nastier) to each other but at least the nuances will not be lost as they now are.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 06:03:04 (EDT)
From: Patrick Wilson
Email: patrick@patrickwilson.com
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Is sarcasm abuse?
Message:
Of course not.

Jim, you have shown yourself, over the years to be capable of tact and patience, but you seem to struggle with an itchy trigger finger.

In the game 'Tomb Raider' Lara Croft confronts a red and black clad Ninja who wields some scary blades in both hands. Lara of course is armed to the teeth but cannot shoot him down whilst he is whirling the blades in front of him. You have to wait until he stops this defensive move before you can successfully shoot the bugger.

One finds oneself frustratedly pumping ineffective bullets into this nerd at infinitum. However patience and actually ignoring him is rewarded by him drooping his defences and Lo! You can nail him with a couple of rounds from your shotgun.

Similarly , sarcasm is lost on someone who is in defence mode, but effective when their trust is gained!

People like Mike Finch (who I used to live with in the ashram and who i know as a clever but sensitive fellow) and Mike Dettmers came to to the forum clearly prepared to engage in discussion -even arguments that would be constructive for them to heal their cultic sores.

Mike Dettmers was able to be dispassionate enough about himself to not clam up into a defensive mode when greeted with personal confrontation and his agenda was such that he needed to stay the course for his own reasons - despite all. The other Mike seems to feel that his personal need to talk about Maharaji and Knowledge is not so vital as to be worth putting himself through such ordeals.

You are probably used to situations, as a Lawyer, where people find themselves having to listen to your argument (which you can put as sarcasticly, acerbically , wittily, cleverly as you like). They have no choice put to sit tight and listen because they are literally captive audiences.
It is not like that here of course. Here, if one wants to make a point, one may have to woo the person whose delusions you question or seek to destroy, by a more indirect approach- even a more tolerant and sensitive one.

Although this may take longer to achieve success it is the only sensible option, as the former approach will probably send your prey rushing for the exit and you will fail in your endeavour.

The main similarity with a court situation here is that all this takes place in public, bringing into the equation the possibility that, since your manner has made your opponent closed-minded to your arguments, you are continuing the futile line of questioning and argument for some other reason(s).

Indeed there is no point in carrying on until you have won the trust of the person you are arguing with if your intent is to get through to them.

The possible other reasons to continue are:

a) that you are playing to members of the gallery who like to see others belittled.

b) that you are prepared to argue with the person - not for their benefit but at their expense - to make them look a fool or to punish them.

c) that you enjoy others admiring your arguments despite the fact that the person who you are apparently talking with is not listening anymore.

d) that you just don't understand what it takes to win an argument under these froum circumstances ie. you have to WIN

Winning means that the person you are arguing with understands your point and concedes or agrees as the outcome.

Losing means that they don't - are defiant and turn the tables on you -slating you as a bully, aggressive etc.

To win requires tact, tolerance and civility and respect towards others, as well as being armed with convincing arguments and a good, clear understanding of the situation and topic.

What people seem to dislike here is the fact that the degree to which they are 'on' or 'off the fence' seems to matter considerably.

Therefore people like Mike naturally wonder if there is not an agenda here (whether stated or through silent accord) whereby premies that enter are somehow willingly subjecting themselves to a 'trial' situation, rather than one where there is more tolerant. These people seem to be saying:

'Look we came here with open minds to argue and discuss these issues NICELY, but we are not going to do so unless we are treated with more respect'

I think there is a need for a balance of tolerance and intolerance towards bullshit - this is the tricky bit - how much respect can you give someone who is defending cultic beliefs?
The answer I believe is that you have to give people a fair chance to change before slamming them.

So it is really a matter of argumentive skill, to keep people interested and un-offended enough that they stay the course of your arguments. Of course this works both ways.

I think that the whole thing falls down when say, a premie comes here and is obviously aggressively pro M. Their anti-exes aggression is met with aggression and no real communication takes place other than vitriol. However if someone, like Mike, comes here with mixed feelings they need to be given a chance, after all any dissention towards Maharaji on their part indicates that they are going in the right direction as far as this forum goes. N'est-ce-pas?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 21:36:46 (EDT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Patrick Wilson
Subject: Patrick Wilson-funny
Message:
THATS what I meant to say in my Recovering sarcastic post below.
hmmm very nice
thanks - I must file that somewhere for the sarcastic wannabes I have spawned.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:57:11 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Patrick Wilson
Subject: Re: Is sarcasm abuse?
Message:
I agree with most of what you're saying, Patrick. I always try to be fair to people here despite what anyone thinks. What set me off about Mike's entry, as I've explained, was the combination of the ease with which he was able to accuse some of us as being caught up in cultish thinking (for criticizing Sandy and Turner) whereas he had some sort of special understanding by which, even as a premie, he was beyond being in a cult himself. Hey, it pissed me off. What can I say?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 15:40:25 (EDT)
From: Francesca :)
Email: None
To: Patrick Wilson
Subject: GREAT POST, Patrick! good points [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 07:46:19 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: None
To: Francesca :)
Subject: Yes good points Patrick
Message:
particularly
Winning means that the person you are arguing with understands your point and concedes or agrees as the outcome.
and I can't see anyone being persuaded by sarcasm which should come at the stage when you have given up trying to convince and just want to ridicule the other persons beliefs - which admittedly is the only way to go in some circumstances.
Although both sides in a reasonable dialogue should listen to each other with open minds and rather than winning both come away having learnt something new - there are occassions (such as talking to those under the influence of mystical,magic,baloney ) when you cannot give credence to what the other person says and you have to firstly try and convince them that they are trapped in a fantasy world.
Of course it's only human in such circumstances, through frustration, to resort to the odd sarcastic remark
berni
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 14:03:11 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: berni
Subject: No, I don't agree
Message:
particularly
Winning means that the person you are arguing with understands your point and concedes or agrees as the outcome.
and I can't see anyone being persuaded by sarcasm which should come at the stage when you have given up trying to convince and just want to ridicule the other persons beliefs - which admittedly is the only way to go in some circumstances.
Although both sides in a reasonable dialogue should listen to each other with open minds and rather than winning both come away having learnt something new - there are occassions (such as talking to those under the influence of mystical,magic,baloney ) when you cannot give credence to what the other person says and you have to firstly try and convince them that they are trapped in a fantasy world.
Of course it's only human in such circumstances, through frustration, to resort to the odd sarcastic remark
berni


---

For one thing, 'winning' doesn't have to happen right there and then. Sometimes it's what one takes away from a discussion and thinks about later that makes a difference. Even if that's scorn and ridicule -- maybe especially if it is -- one might wonder later 'was what I said really so [fill in the blanks]?'

Also, there's always the shared pleasure two people can enjoy at another's expense. If I can't persuade Bjorn, for instance, that he's being ridiculously this way or that, there's at least some compensation in sharing a laugh at his expense with others. It's all part of the shaming process that keeps us on our feet. That's a good thing. What I really needed in 1973, for example, was Abi Hoffman sitting in my living room laughing at how stupid I was getting over a stupid hindu cargo cult. Instead, I had nothing but open-minded people willing to give me and my new idiotic ideas the benefit of the doubt! People willing to listen to me, even. Damn!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 06:37:44 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: No, I don't agree
Message:
Hi Jim,
The point I was making was that it might be more effective to transmit your understanding of something through reasoned discourse whilst making it obvious that you are trying to win so that your 'opponent' will benefit in the end ( through seeing the world in what you believe is a more realistic light - i.e. gain further understanding, get wiser etc.).
I get your point that sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind but there are some (not you I'm sure )who would use sarcasm as a cat plays with a mouse - i.e. just for their own amusement and without regard for the effect on the recipient. However I also concede that there some fellows not worth worrying about and to whom you are indifferent at best. After past attempts to communicate with them you become uninterested in whether or not they will ever see reason - and there are some folk who are just plain nasty and need taking down a peg or two.

However, as to having 'Abi Hoffman sitting in my living room laughing at how stupid I was' I am not sure that it wouldn't have made me dig my heels in even more.
There was plenty of sarcasm when I was a premie but never a reasoned, Dawkins-type, philosophical, neuro-scientific...or any other kind of argument telling me why my experience at the time was not valid and that my 'cosmological' ideas were nonsense - that would have made more impression than people trying to make a fool of me.
berni

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 11:41:40 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: berni
Subject: Yeah, I agree with THAT
Message:
However, as to having 'Abi Hoffman sitting in my living room laughing at how stupid I was' I am not sure that it wouldn't have made me dig my heels in even more.
There was plenty of sarcasm when I was a premie but never a reasoned, Dawkins-type, philosophical, neuro-scientific...or any other kind of argument telling me why my experience at the time was not valid and that my 'cosmological' ideas were nonsense - that would have made more impression than people trying to make a fool of me.

Yeah, that's kind of true, isn't it? Even Abi couldn't really articulate why Maharaji was necessarily fraudulent, save and except for the obvious suspicions a teenage Lord of the Universe gives rise to. What we needed is what we have now. Too bad for us then, good for us (and anyone intersted in the truth) now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:29:57 (EDT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No ,but what you do is.
Message:
The point is you dont know when you are abusive. And you are major defensive. Perhaps if you stopped and thought about who you might be giving a 'sarcastic' (sic), read abusive, tongue to.
To me Jim your manner and behavior here fit just fine. It's like in one of those Indiana Jones movies whereby if you get past the intial monster/death threat/mortal danger you can continue with your journey and find that's just the start. There are far more insidious traps awaiting the unwary. You ,your just the Dragon at the mouth of the cave.
But I think it is time you considered this. You dont know much about any activity outside of Nth America that didn't occur over 10 years ago. Anything you do know is based on whatever paucity of information you can glean here and amongst your network of has-beens. Have you ever considered who you might be talking to? My guess is that you write people off as cheesy schmucks who are just rank and file. And everyone is
And we never tell you anything because we dont know anything.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:27:27 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: ??
Message:
Cat,

I really don't understand your post. 'Cheesy schmuck' has a certain warm, friendly sound but the rest I don't get. You ask me to consider who I'm sarcastic with -- I do. Then you move on to how irrelevant my knowledge base is. I disagree. What's your point?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 22:33:27 (EDT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: ??
Message:
My point is that you shoot first and ask questions later. As to considering who, I dont think you do. You continually prove that what you are attacking is essentially the past. THEREFORE, it has no relevance to many current day involved. Capiche?Now if you'll excuse me Jim , I have a prior engagment. It's Saturday afternoon!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 06:17:26 (EDT)
From: Patrick Wilson
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: Re: ??
Message:

My point is that you shoot first and ask questions later. As to considering who, I dont think you do. You continually prove that what you are attacking is essentially the past. THEREFORE, it has no relevance to many current day involved. Capiche?

The past effects of Maharaji on people has relevance to the 'current day involved' in that they should maybe be aware of the roots of what they are getting into.

Maybe it is natural that a new wife does not want to hear the arguments of her husbands ex. However in some cases it may have been a good thing if the new wife had been informed of the way that her husband mistreated his former lovers.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 14:33:45 (EDT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: Patrick Wilson
Subject: Re: ??
Message:
First of all I am not a Johnny come lately Patrick so pontificating on the past does not impress me. I have no complaints about the past .There were some real dead shits around. A few of them have shown up here> The rest are pretty much gone IMHO. Essentially there is a plethora of misinformation available on this glorious site.And if you dont have the benifit of hindsight and real experience quite simply you guys would convince any would be suitors that they they are pursuing a wife-beater. It aint so
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 18:47:44 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: CW - Misinformation on EPO????
Message:
Cat,

I've openly and sincerely asked for examples of errors, lies, and other untruths on EPO. I'm glad you've responded. Now if you could just point them out with evidence that the statements are untrue, then I'll be happy to remove or correct them. As I've said before, I exclude the forum archives as there are guaranteed to be untruths there as, in a factual disagreement (as there are many in the forum archives), both sides can't be right.

John

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:27:27 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: Your Master is a liar
Message:
First of all I am not a Johnny come lately Patrick so pontificating on the past does not impress me. I have no complaints about the past .There were some real dead shits around. A few of them have shown up here> The rest are pretty much gone IMHO. Essentially there is a plethora of misinformation available on this glorious site.And if you dont have the benifit of hindsight and real experience quite simply you guys would convince any would be suitors that they they are pursuing a wife-beater. It aint so


---

It is true I would not be suprised if Rawat were very oppressive and unpleasant to people close to him -- and I do not doubt he has effectively condoned violence and abuse, so would likely indulge himself, if it suited his interests or tastes at the time.

The point is though, that he is a useless liar, that you refuse to see that, and have a nasty streak yourself.

Just my two cents.

JohnT
- never a premie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 22:41:03 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: I don't buy that argument
Message:
Even IF all I was doing was attacking the past, that's enough. Maharaji trapped me in his cult in the past. It's the past that matters to me personally.

But I don't think I'm just attacking the past. I'm attacking a man with a past.

Beyond that, I'm attacking the man today. How do I know him? By his words, actions and the reports of many, many, many others.

Let me add this, Cat, of all the people I know outside the cult, not a single one's ever said that the past shouldn't matter like you premies do. It seems to be a bit of a cult-specific POV.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 14:23:38 (EDT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: I don't buy that argument
Message:
I am not saying the past does not matter. I am saying you are woefully misinformed regarding the present and perhaps the last 10 years.
That is exactly my point. If you are to critise anyone why rely on unsustantiated 15 year old batshit.Nothing, I repeat NOTHING that has been put up in recent times is REMOTELY accurate.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:33:29 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: Full of bull....yawnnn [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:32:35 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: Put up or shut up
Message:
I am not saying the past does not matter. I am saying you are woefully misinformed regarding the present and perhaps the last 10 years.
That is exactly my point. If you are to critise anyone why rely on unsustantiated 15 year old batshit.Nothing, I repeat NOTHING that has been put up in recent times is REMOTELY accurate.


---

You seem to think that if you say something often enough it must be true. But if there are inaccuracies on the EPO site or posted here, you have only to point them out.

Making unsubstantiated assertions in a medium like this where it is so easy to point to errors is, well, just silly really.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 19:21:45 (EDT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Is your name Jim?
Message:
Really, you haven't got a clue . You act like a snivelling sycophant. Let's face it 'John T never a premie' ,how would you know? You were NEVER THERE!!!
Basically everything you spout is gained on these Sports pages or from other X's. I think you have a particularily nasty streak.You chase me around like a whining litte terrier and say big mean things and beat your little pommy chest real hard. Trouble is you never do anything or say anything interesting -no wit, no sarcasm, no irony - just bland and bleak

There are mistruths and halftruths a plenty HERE. There so obvious that it's only the 30 regulars here that choose to believe them. so take your argument and think about what you said about this medium. I dont have to become a one person vigilante squad. People reading have enough discernment to generally figure it for themselves.
If you want an example try that rambling load of rubbish that PAM put together.Let's just say that it was VERY creative.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 01:58:48 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: No: Is your real name Michael??
Message:
Michael aka CW: here are mistruths and halftruths a plenty HERE.

So what are they? Like I said (and you ignored) Put up or shut up.

And no, Pussy, I am not about to take lessons in manners from you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 04:49:00 (EDT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: No: Is your real name Michael?
Message:
No it's not.And I dont have to follow instructions. Ah, have you thought that I may be a woman?You can call me what you like. Not close and no cigar....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 05:05:28 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: *** AMAZING STRAIGHT ANSWER FROM CAT! ***
Message:
No it's not.And I dont have to follow instructions. Ah, have you thought that I may be a woman?You can call me what you like. Not close and no cigar....


---

Of course, even tho it's a straight answer, we've no way of knowing it's true. And that is the trouble, Cat. You are so used to taking instructions from your Master (the dismal and fraudulent Captain Prempal Rawat of Malibu) that you think regular folk strange.

It seems that in slavishly following a fraud, you have become one yourself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 23:40:02 (EDT)
From: SC
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: What?
Message:
put the whiskey down John

your train just left the rails..... Toot Toot!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:58:43 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Isn't he something, John?
Message:
Have you ever seen such ineffectual persistence? He simply doesn't get it, I'm afraid. No one's interested in empty criticisms. Put up or shut up is right!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 19:25:23 (EDT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Isn't he something, John?
Message:
Sarcasm seems to be your strong point Heller. But you are definetly its weak point. And thats good. All power to Heller. May he smite people forever. He's a real popular guy! See yah Mr Dragon...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 19:58:33 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: A textbook example of BAD sarcasm
Message:
Sarcasm seems to be your strong point Heller. But you are definetly its weak point. And thats good. All power to Heller. May he smite people forever. He's a real popular guy! See yah Mr Dragon...


---

Cat,

I'm sorry but this last post of your is embarrasingly off. Care to try again?

Really, dude, rather than sneer and sputter why don't you just finally, for once and for all, tell us what the hell you're talking about? As things stand right now, it's not even that you don't have any credibility. It's worse than that. It's that you're not even saying anything.

Honestly, I feel sorry for you. What in the world must be going on in that head of yours?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 22:34:00 (EDT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: New Premie
Subject: OK Clever Dick
Message:
...read the website at Expremies' Journeys.

Reading how other people came to Maharaji and got Knowledge and then decided to leave is an easy and personal way to find out what ex-premies are all about.

Once you have an idea of who we are and why we call ourselves ex-premies then it is easier to talk to people on the forum.

If you are really serious then read all the other stuff on Ex-premie Website. I'm sure a lot of your questions will be answered.

If they aren't then please fell free to ask questions here on the forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 00:46:57 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: Suitable for framing
Message:
Yeah I left out one key word in the little rave. It was 4am and I'd had a big coupla days. Thanks Jim Here are the missing words
'You are definitely this site's weakest point'
Get it ? And long may you stay here. You frighten thousands!Bit harsh?Donner and Finch both tried to tell you politely . I'm not polite. YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK HELLER...bye bye???


---

From you, Cat, that's a compliment.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 02:13:33 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Certainly a compliment ...
Message:
... that CW wants you out of here, although the cultural (?) allusion to a British TV Game Show called The Weakest Link may be lost on some.

Catweasel wishes to lecture you on how to be effective against the cult, and myself on manners. That's funny. Sad but funny.

For what it's worth, we have each been sincerely complimented in those areas, but, of course we can always improve.

So thanks Cat. But when will you start giving constructive advice, and taking it yourself?

Eh, Pussy?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 10:01:36 (EDT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: Certainly a compliment ...
Message:
Dont be silly. I am the lone punching bag here John . A neat little foil to bounce off whilst no major drama can be manufactured or re-heated. I have no illusions as to my singular unimportance.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 03:36:12 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Perhaps Pussy's one of the alcoholics...
Message:
...that ''Pam'' talked about. That's the only charitable explanation I can come up with. He really is being as clever as he possibly can be.

Does Pussy think that, by saying the opposite of what is the truth, that his version will come true or that lurking premies will be dumb enough to believe him? (Of course he may just be trying to convince himself.) Does Pussy think that, by lecturing John on manners and implying that Jim is a liability, it must be true? Perhaps Catweasel's boorish manners and pitiful lack of intelligence and sensitivity are the latest fashion in premiedom.

Pussy, don't you see that, to anyone who just lives in the ordinary human world and does not have to believe in a weird master worshiping cult, you come across as a sour misanthrope while John makes an impression as a gentleman and you look ludicrously dimwitted while Jim is obviously uncompromisingly intelligent?

Yes, I think you do but you've got your fingers crossed and your eyes shut tight and you're clicking your red high-heels together hoping that it's not true and that you're still in Oz not Kansas.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 04:53:03 (EDT)
From: CW
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Perhaps Pussy's one of the alcoholics...
Message:
Are you in love or something Pat? Jim intelligent? yeah and so's a cornered water buffalo.Think what you want . I'm off to more interesting pastures. Bye
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 14:46:13 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CW
Subject: Cat, can't you see yourself?
Message:
How many years now have you been posting these same empty criticisms? You keep saying we don't have an accurate take on what's really going on in your cult but you never -- not even once -- say how. Instead, all sorts of people come here and do describe the current lay of the land and, yeah, it's atrocious. Plus, of course, we can see for ourselves what's happening on m's own website and stuff.

If you've got something to say, you should say it. Saying what you do is far from persuasive.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:21:37 (EDT)
From: Mom
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim: a thumbnail sketch
Message:
When I first saw EPO and the Forums, I read your posts and your unremitting attacks on Maharaji. The somewhat rabid tone made me think you were just a hothead who had it in for Our Former Lord. It gave my denial mechanisms foder to discount you and your message. Nevertheless, I now appreciate that it was your tenacity that uncovered alot of the facts about Maharaji that are now in the Public Domain.

Now that I have finally seen through Maharaji, I generally regard your posts with amusement and on occasion a slight recoil. You're a very bright guy, Jim, but you seem to enjoy stirring things up, maybe a bit too much for my taste. It Seems this Forum is your hobby and you use it to express your seemingly endless prosecutorial zeal on Maharaji and whatever other subject your fancy turns to. Ironically, it is when others become emotional and overbearing that you become more reasoned and reasonable and your posts serve to illuminate more than obfuscate. Go Figure.
I believe that it would be more effective (allow more readers to get it about Maharaji and discount the message less) if you would tone things down and stick to Topic. Then again what do I know. Enjoy your Hobby. Love, Mom

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:26:27 (EDT)
From: Mummiji
Email: None
To: Mom
Subject: Another 'Mom'miji!!!
Message:
Nice to meet you! I'm Saucy's Mummiji! :) Do you know him? Whose Mommiji are you?

Lovijis and hugsijis,

Saucy's Mummiji :) ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:51:03 (EDT)
From: michael donner
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Is sarcasm abuse?
Message:
hi jim, is sarcasm abuse...not necessarily but usually not a clean or most useful way to communicate...just make the point you want to make in simple terms that are personally owed by you...even asking retorical quetions has similiar affect and can be off putting, and makes the other often defensive. my two bits
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 08:38:40 (EDT)
From: The Lowest form of Wit? nt
Email: None
To: michael donner
Subject: Re: Is sarcasm abuse?
Message:
Didn't someone famous say that?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:05:20 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: michael donner
Subject: Better to be funny [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 01:52:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Like your anthrax joke, you mean? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 20:54:37 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Like your anthrax joke, you mean?
Message:
Didnt mean to rain on your parade, I am sure it was quality stuff,
I just ingested over my limit and now I'm in repulse mode around
the war issue.
I kind of feel like just a few guys are dominating my focus and they are SO unworthy!~
Forum folks at thier worst somehow dont annoy me like the war issues.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 00:27:46 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Re: Like your anthrax joke, you mean?
Message:
Well, wish I could actually discuss this stuff... but everything I have to say about it (and that's a lot) is either very controversial, or already secret. It bothers me a lot though. I may discuss some of it on AG, but this place is too weird.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:43:59 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Is there anything really left to say Scott
Message:
? The wheels are in motion .....both sides will wage a propaganda war alongside a military one. Eventually a compromised patched up Afghanistan will take shape, probably to be essentially ignored in a year or two as long as it doesn't threaten larger powers.

The Russians will intimidate, and in many cases torture, swathes of innocent Chechens, in the name of fighting terrorism.The Chinese, likewise, will oppress Chinese muslims , in the name of fighting terrorism. India and Pakistan will squabble over Kashmir.Israelis and Palestinians will do what they do best. The western countries will have lost a whole heap of cherished liberties in the name of defending liberty. Politicians will talk of a new 'new world order' but real justice won't get a look in.

Ever been to Speakers corner in Hyde Park , London, Where disparate groups of people(mostly loonies!) exercise their right of free speech for a day? That's what will be allowed from now on ......people like us can discuss things till we're blue in the face ....Governmets will blithely ignore it all in pursuit of .....what? The same old, same old I'm afraid. Military and finacial power will rule the roost whilst a pacified populace will be told any old yarn to keep the wheels in motion.

Ideals? Morals? Ethics? Fairness? Justice?.....What earthly use are they to Governments, except to spout about when their power and security is threatened?

Am I being a tad too cynical?

Cheers

Dermot

waiting to see how it all pans out over the next few weeks and months

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:42:58 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Is there anything really left to say Scott
Message:
? The wheels are in motion .....both sides will wage a propaganda war alongside a military one. Eventually a compromised patched up Afghanistan will take shape, probably to be essentially ignored in a year or two as long as it doesn't threaten larger powers.

The Russians will intimidate, and in many cases torture, swathes of innocent Chechens, in the name of fighting terrorism.The Chinese, likewise, will oppress Chinese muslims , in the name of fighting terrorism. India and Pakistan will squabble over Kashmir.Israelis and Palestinians will do what they do best. The western countries will have lost a whole heap of cherished liberties, in the name of defending liberty. Politicians will talk of a new 'new world order' but real justice won't get a look in.

Ever been to Speakers corner in Hyde Park , London, Where disparate groups of people(mostly loonies!) exercise their right of free speech for a day? That's what will be allowed from now on ......people like us can discuss things till we're blue in the face ....Governmets will blithely ignore it all in pursuit of .....what? The same old, same old I'm afraid. Military and finacial power will rule the roost whilst a pacified populace will be told any old yarn to keep the wheels in motion.

Ideals? Morals? Ethics? Fairness? Justice?.....What earthly use are they to Governments, except to spout about when their power and security is threatened?

Am I being a tad too cynical?

Cheers

Dermot

waiting to see how it all pans out over the next few weeks and months

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:05:08 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: michael donner
Subject: With all due respect, Mike ...
Message:
hi jim, is sarcasm abuse...not necessarily but usually not a clean or most useful way to communicate...just make the point you want to make in simple terms that are personally owed by you...even asking retorical quetions has similiar affect and can be off putting, and makes the other often defensive. my two bits


---

Mike,

First, what does 'ow[n]ed by you' mean? To me that means nothing at all although I've heard it many times in new age circles.

Second, what's wrong with 'defensive'? If you're driving the wrong way up a one-way street people are going to honk, laugh, yell. It's supposed to make you think 'what's going on here?' Often it works. When Dettmers showed up here he got a gazillion different responses. Some were kind and respectful, some were not. Some most certainly made him defensive, I couldn't imagine him feeling otherwise.

But big deal, huh! That was the confrontation with reality -- reality being the myriad opinions and responses of all these other people -- that helped him break through some nonsense he'd been carrying around for over a decade about Maharaji being faultless, beyond reproach, blah, blah, blah. That was all nonsense and Dettmers got that when he got confronted.

Well, I know people like to talk about how we're all different and everything but I don't buy that, not the way it's sold anyway. Sure, we're all different but we're one hell a lot alike too. And, to me, Dettmers is an example of how good, honest open dialogue, including sarcasm, anger (as well as all the 'nice' things) is effective if and when people are sincere.

The other thing is that there's a certain ridiculousness to what we all accepted as reasonable. In fact, there's a great amount of ridiculousness. Sarcasm seems to be the appropriate response at times. Does it make the other person defensive? Yes. Should they then cry 'boo hoo' and call for a medic? No, not if they're sincerely interested in the issues.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:03:31 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: So, were you asking a question,
Message:
or just looking for an opportunity to express your views? It's a distinction that not everyone will miss.

Actually, the harm from sarcasm isn't so much to the person who's the object of it, but potentially to the person using it. Not any new agey sort of issue either. It's just that you're liable to get your teeth broken (or the psychological equivalent) if you're sarcastic to the wrong person. It is, in a sense, a sort of invasion... like standing too close in an uncrowded room, only worse. Some people do more than just register a little offense. I try not to be too sarcastic unless I have good dental insurance.

No, I changed my mind. Sarcasm is a good way to make friends and meet babes.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 17:02:25 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: False dilemna?
Message:
or just looking for an opportunity to express your views? It's a distinction that not everyone will miss.

Actually, the harm from sarcasm isn't so much to the person who's the object of it, but potentially to the person using it. Not any new agey sort of issue either. It's just that you're liable to get your teeth broken (or the psychological equivalent) if you're sarcastic to the wrong person. It is, in a sense, a sort of invasion... like standing too close in an uncrowded room, only worse. Some people do more than just register a little offense. I try not to be too sarcastic unless I have good dental insurance.

No, I changed my mind. Sarcasm is a good way to make friends and meet babes.

--Scott


---

Maybe both, Scott?

Sounds a little rough and tumble in the D.C. area there. But I get your point.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 03:43:14 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Very dry and droll, Scott
Message:
That's a side to you I had not seen before because I have often seen you belabor topics....er...laboriously.

As I have no desire to pick up babes I have given up sarcasm in favor of irony and hope that at least somone will catch on.

I think the difference between sarcasm and irony is that sarcasm is obvious enough to ensure that the audience catches on. With irony, you really are lucky if only one person in the audience gets it.

I know Jim resorts to sarcasm after three of his ironies have been missed. (Just kidding, Jim. I'm really not counting.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:17:43 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: My genes control me after all.
Message:
Pat:

According to my grandmother there is actually a trait, or style, referred to as 'Talkington sarcasm.' Several of us in my generation have decided, however, that we're not going to stoop that low. So as a result I almost never know consciously when I have.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:40:22 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No, just unfriendly
Message:
Jim, I remember that exchange well and it was interesting to read it again. I was still fairly new too but had gone through the thing of saying I was not an expremie. In fact I shed that illusion on my second day here when Cynthia challenged me on that.

I think perhaps you were being harder on Mike than you were on me (for instance) because I was a cult peon but he was a honcho and one time PAM.

And there is a fine line between brutal irony and sarcasm. The former is often needed simply as an alternative to sinking into cussing out a frustratingly dim bulb.

I did cringe at your tone of voice to Mike at the time because, while I felt that he was being overly diplomatic, I felt that you did not give him enough credit for apologising (twice) for any pain he may have caused us cult peons in the past.

However, like the CAC stuff, your responses have to placed in the context of that particular time. If I recall the forum was almost being dominated by two particularly frustrating people, Turner and Sandy.

Also I would not keep calling yourself a bully even in jest. Some people might think it's true. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:47:36 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Sandy
Message:
PatC: However, like the CAC stuff, your responses have to placed in the context of that particular time. If I recall the forum was almost being dominated by two particularly frustrating people, Turner and Sandy.

I don't suppose Sandy and I agree on much at all, but I really think it is unfair to regard him as similiar to Turner. Sandy is a real person, Turner could be a fake persona for all we know. He sure sounds like one to me anyway.

Sandy is one caring guy, if frustratingly confused. I like Sandy! I think even Gerry Lyng likes Sandy (tho I rather think Jim does not!) He is quite a space cadet, tho, that cannot be denied!

JohnT
- never a premie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 17:10:33 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Sandy is real - I agree
Message:
Well said, John. I should not have used them in the same context. ''Turner'' was cynical and creepy but Sandy was sincere if somewhat dreamy and muddled.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:26:36 (EDT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: from a recovering Sacastic
Message:
''My question though is about the people who would and have called this kind of sarcasm abusive. And it's this:

Are you really doing anyone any favours? ''

I think you have more discrimination about how you engage the premies than ever before and have mastered communication and that is helping the Pams come out.

what follows may be useful

It has taken me much of my adult life to get rid of my own sarcasm habit. I was an expert black belt in school and that worked well . However, my teenage daughter could out strip me and I had to revamp or go to jail.
Part of that revamp was to look at some of the elements of a sarcastic exchange and find some patterns.

here are some that show up in what you have posted above:
sorry for the capitals .

- the allowance of a third party observer. This is a key element.
A good sarcasm master is adept at cut and thrust. The cut is in answer to what the opponent is saying, and the thrust is aimed at what MOTIVATES the opponent - which he is BLIND to . The thrust , if it is a good one, comes from an angle that is unexpected, BUT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE LAST CUT.

It is important for the thrust to be within the scope of the last cut because IF YOU OPPONENT DOESNT 'GET' IT (becaseu he doesnt have his eyes open) , IT DOESNT HELP HIM AND THEN THE ONLY BENEFIT TO YOU IS THE THIRD PARTY ATTENTION YOU MAY RECEIVE.
APPROVAL/perception OF THE THIRD PARTY THEN ALSO BECOMES PART OF YOUR AGENDA-if your opponent makes the right moves to accomplish this.
(your many faceted reputation precedes you here and this can be used agaisnt you)

Now pay attention here . I hereby impart my hard earned teenage daughter lesson.
Being that , as I said above 'The cut is in answer to what the opponent is saying, and the thrust is aimed at what MOTIVATES the opponent - which he is BLIND to'
DOUBLE BLADED sarcasm is abusive. by double bladed I mean that the third party audience/observer factor is utilized- by the thrust action applied via the third party observers perspective.

UNless the 2 partys agree that the 3rd party perspective is PART of the discussion in order to come to an understanding it is ABusive.
Reason? You, Jim , from the start have a agenda and that is to unseat Mike from his premie logic perch. That is OK and if he didnt want that he wouldnt have wandered into the forum.

Sarcasm is ok to a certain extent - for the reasons you have mentioned.

However, unless the sarcasm is taken in stages and NOt into 'abuse' - you loose your opponents attention and by his withdrawal from the discussion ( because of non comprehension ,denial, hurt or whatever) , YOU jim , end up in a freeZe frame- for all lurkers ect to see, in a wild pose and a menacing grimance. In other words you end up looking deranged and bully.

the bully label is appropriate because a bully needs an audience to excel. If your opponent withdraws mid discussion because you have brought the 3rd PARTY perspective thrust in PREMATUrELY ( before you have coaxed him and have his agreement to it )-- you are halted (in the eyes of the observer) in a freeze frame bully pose.

And that is a key poont , your opponent usually inadvertantly uses the 3dr party angle to his advanttage and it can make you look cruel, in the right lighting.

now a primed and loaded sarcastic master ALSO knows instictivley to appy vinegar/poison to the second or deadly thrust.

However, if there is a frenzy going on, you may get the timing off (because premies tend to vanish mid spar) and YOU are caught in a freeze frame dripping in your own vinegar /poison that your had brewed for your opponent. Not good.
makes you look like you have a aggro problem

Now then , the above is why some people try to not use sarcasm and continually renegotiate the terms of the discussion. the trick is to Lovingly usher them into realizations gently if they want it.

Myself I find it hard to judge when they need proding and when to keep me mouth shut.

however, premies do not know how to negotiate cause they cant think. My hit is that due to the forum, premies are being forced to think about the issues and that means that Some , can be helped.

If people dont get your humoruous comments then throw them over the ramparts.

also, four letter words always come across strange in print. the tone of voice used is lost and therefore misunderstood.

now be nice
Z

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:38:11 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: Holy cow!
Message:
I'm still a little distracted by the notion of your teenage daughter outstripping you. May I ask, Zelda, are you male or female?

I think I'm following you with all this thrust and cut stuff and I kind of like it. But -- honestly? -- I'm not sure I DO get it. You went to great pains to write all that out but I have to ask you, could you rephrase or summarize the basics a bit? Seriously, I'm tres interested but confused.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:02:53 (EDT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: oh ..ok
Message:
its like this:
is sarcasm abuse...not necessarily but usually not a clean or most useful way to communicate...just make the point you want to make in simple terms that are personally owed by you...even asking retorical quetions has similiar affect and can be off putting, and makes the other often defensive.

'-)))

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:46:51 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Great stuff, Zelda but, like Jim,...
Message:
.....I could do with another lesson, please. I got the gist of it. I just think it needs to be re-written for those of us who have never studied sarcasm as a martial art.

My guess is that you are talking about MOM and daughter battles.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:59:09 (EDT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: in summary
Message:
you have to read it slower and breathe/think with your feminine side.
Jim is accussed of being a bully and sarcasm is one of his tools.

bully implies and audience and his opponent can take advantage of his zeal to appeal to the third party- by withdrawing and catching him in a frenzy of sarcasm.

and i am talking about mother daughter sparring-
you know -females hormonal and venom. dont you guys know about that???

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:06:27 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: Re: in summary- I thought so
Message:
No dads and sons have that horrible oedipal thingy which is deadlier than mom/daughter sparring.

If you knew how soft spoken Jim is in real life you would realize that he is anything but a bully. Maybe a bull-terrier who nags and worries his prey but his prey is seldom a person usually a delusion.

I gave up sarcasm anyway as well as making vicious comments about people. It made me dislike myself.

So, now I will meditate first and then re-read your lecture on sarcasm as a martial art. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:57:03 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Pat:C)
Subject: 'Bullying'
Message:
Hi Pat,

No I don't see anything going on here as 'bullying'. For me, bullies are people who threaten harmful real-world consequences for non-compliance (like the CAC authors, say). In fact, I'd say it devalues the term when used to merely describe a forthright argument with less-than-civil tone. Same as I don't like 'abuse' used in reference to forum exchanges - real-world abuse being of such a differen order. Glad you hate cultural theory, too.. Best - Nige

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 17:08:41 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I'll go a little further
Message:
Hi Pat,

No I don't see anything going on here as 'bullying'. For me, bullies are people who threaten harmful real-world consequences for non-compliance (like the CAC authors, say). In fact, I'd say it devalues the term when used to merely describe a forthright argument with less-than-civil tone. Same as I don't like 'abuse' used in reference to forum exchanges - real-world abuse being of such a differen order. Glad you hate cultural theory, too.. Best - Nige


---

Nige,

I'm basically with you here. However, I guess I'd be willing to go a little further and say that there could be psychological bullying here, or online somewhere. If the 'victim' is particularly sensitive for some reason, then words alone could do the job. I have to say that, believe it or not, Bjorn, in all his ineffectiveness, might well have been seen as bullying Abi were it not for the fact that she's a good ten million times smarter -- his ineffectiveness quotient is pretty high.

But when someone keeps preaching here, for instance, and gets shot down again and again, that's not bullying. It's not abuse either. It isn't even harrassment. It's just quality control.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 03:49:13 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: 'Bullying' - Ditto, Nige
Message:
As I said about Jim - if anyone heard how soft-spoken and sweet he (and you) are in real life they would never associate it with some of his and your less than diplomatic posts.

These little black words on the screen are totally devoid of the person's tone of voice and sound much harsher than they really are. I was shocked that the CACroaches presented me as a bully and evil cyberstalker. Why - butter has never melted in my mouth.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 00:35:46 (EDT)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: 'Bullying' - Ditto, Nige
Message:
Hi Pat:C)

And we could another step further. You have talked with Jim on the phone and told me in emails that it changed your perception of him entirely. And that's just a voice.

I wouldn't say that knowing Jim personally, in the flesh, is going to save you of any cerebral confrontations but it definitely changes the perception of 'What is being said' and 'How it is being said.'

Because I've sat in the same room and talked with him, I not only hear the inflections of the Jim voice but I can readily visulaize his intellectually playful reactions to the posts.

You get an added dimension from talking to people and a further added dimension from inter-face communication. It's amazing how much communication goes into a glance, smile, physical gestures, or even a frown or supercillious look goes when you are actually talking with someone.

Our perceptions of Who people are, and what they are saying, is mainly in our imaginations. No question about it?

Deb

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:35:36 (EDT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: in summary- I thought so
Message:
Ho ho i dont know about that dad son thing. .. ye old female destruction of the male is the one that I am the most shall we say familiar with....

dont misunderstand me. I know jim is as sensitive and gentle as one would hope for . he just loves a joust. its like a work out for him. And his committment to the cause has seen him keep up with the times by changing his strategy .

A premie who wanders in here who 'just benefits from knowledge and doesnt worry about M , his money or ev or accusations'' 'AND who is stupid enought to try to put that across as an acceptable concept for ex premies - that premie can only be unseated by sarcasm perhaps.
I have no patience with them and ignore them. It is to you guys credit that you even bother with them. your inherent compassion for the cause.

gung-ho

Z

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:47:40 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: Jim's a pussy
Message:
It's only dad and eldest son, Zelda. They love each other more than they love themselves and fear being swamped and the love can turn to fear and hate. But that's beside the point.

Yes, Jim is tenacious. He absolutely put me off at first until it became absolutely obvious that he was one of the few people I know who never compromises the truth even if it means throwing tact out of the window.

Perhaps the Recent Exes Forum should be called the Jim-free Forum? ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:07:21 (EDT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Jim's a pussy
Message:
thanks for describing the dad son thing. something for me to ponder at this time. life is requiring me to know that.
timely
Z
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 16:05:30 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: All
Subject: Relative Truths (long but not ot)
Message:
Read your book and lose yourself, in another’s thoughts
He might tell you ‘bout what is, or even ‘bout what is not
And if he’s kind and gentle too and loves the world a lot
His twilight words may melt the slush of what you have been taught…

(Mike Heron, 1967, ‘You Know What You Could Be’)

Of the many ill-informed and waspish comments science-bashing journalist Brian Appleyard ;) makes, none irritate me more than his periodic lunges at Richard Dawkins, whom he routinely dismisses as ‘arrogant’ for simply making honest statements of deeply held atheistic/evolutionary convictions. Try: “http://www.cix.co.uk/~acampbell/bookreviews/r/appleyard.html”

Seems everywhere you turn, people spit in the face of reason and rationality. Moley, in the course of working for her Masters degree daily wades through reams of unreadable, pretentious bilge written by folk who would deny the existence of such thing as an objective truth. ‘Cultural Theory’, as it is known, is (IMO) a pernicious mind-virus reaching epidemic proportions in Western humanities and social science departments: all truths are subjective and relative. Your truth is as true (or untrue) as my truth; nothing is certain. The enquiring philosophical mind can never know reality for there exist as many realities as there are individual, ‘fractured subjectivities’. You have no access to knowledge besides that which your cultural history allows, filters and defines: with no hard rock of objectivity to anchor our frail craft of understanding we are cast adrift to blob and slob about in a raging foment of uncertainty. You might as well be lost in the river of bondage to Maya as it flows into the New Age Sea of Solipsism…

(Hmm, how about stumbling into a disused mine-shaft for once and observing exactly what the untruth of gravity fails to do to you…)

Moley was telling her tutor about the latest neuroscience research into emotion and the brain and was solemnly informed: ‘cultural theory will not take on board neuroscience, since the latter is positivist and therefore unacceptable within cultural-theroretical paradigms’. Too much like hard science? – or is science simply too hard for cultural theorists?

For so many misleaders of men – same as it ever was - it is enough to let rip with any old brain-fart of a story, say ‘let this be how it is’ – and lo and behold, there it is: a non-falsifiable, and therefore unassailable Truth. Whence cometh this drive for drivel? Is it simply ‘the will to believe rather than the desire to find out’, as Bertrand Russell once put it - or something else? What is it about people, they could hope to satisfy their hunger for knowledge, or even function day-to-day in such an anything-goes universe?

There is certainly a time-honoured tradition to such ego-pleasuring story-telling – from the creation myths of the Vedas and the Bible through to French postmodernist Jaques Derrida denying the Einsteinian speed-of-light constant - when he wasn’t otherwise ‘proving’ the center of a circle lies outside of its own perimeter..

A couple of years back, a playful wag from a US physics department exposed the vacuousness of cultural relativistism with an immaculate hoax. (Go to
'http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/index.html' - ‘The Social text Affair’.)

Alan Sokal cobbled together a mass of technical physics theory and data – real and bogus – and ‘showed’ how science was now confirming its own inadequacy in the face of the superior hydra-headed cultural-theoretical wonderbeast. The result – his thoughts on ‘Quantum Gravity’ were warmly accepted for publication in the trendy Social Text journal. Very funny, were its implications not also quite serious for the future of our children’s higher education..

Sokal, of course, was just pretending to be saying something important. The article was swallowed uncritically, because the editors (who were just pretending to understand it) couldn’t, in fact, tell his piece apart from the everyday pretence of their regular contributors - but flattered by Sokal’s tone basked in the cosy glow of this postmodern, cross-disciplinary ‘understanding’.

Just as creationists bask in their shared, pretend understanding that there are viable alternative explanations to Natural Selection for the diversity of life-forms; just as premies and Masters bask in a shared understanding of gifts of Knowledge and precious opportunities. (Can premies tell a Master who is just pretending from the real McCoy? – How, exactly..?)

Sorry to bring up hypnosis again, but I think it is relevant. I am just starting some research into ‘hypnotic amnesia’ – temporary memory loss supposedly induced by a hypnotic suggestion - following-up some recent research by Dr Graham Wagstaff, employing a ‘coin-in-the-hand’ task. The experiment runs like this:

- Subject relaxes and listens to hypnotic induction tape. [The voice on my tape is none other than one Loafji of this very parish, a self-confessed practicing thespian, thus well-skilled in the arts of pretence…;)]

- Subject then reports how hypnotised they feel on a self-rating scale.

- Hypnotist tells subject they are suffering from a seriously-impaired memory, and will continue to do so until they hear a memory-restoring ‘release cue’.

- Then, over ten or more trials, the experimenter holds out both hands, palm up, one of them containing a coin. Subject is asked to close their eyes, count backwards from ten to zero, open their eyes and identify which hand (now clenched fists) contains the coin. The number of correct hits is recorded.

- Subject hears release cue followed by ‘wake-up’ command.

-End.

People with fully-functioning memories (unhypnotised) perform with almost 100% accuracy on this task. Unknown to mosts folks, however, people suffering genuine clinical amnesia also perform with 100% accuracy on this and similar short-term recall tests. The coin-in-the-hand is thus very useful for detecting faked amnesia among work-place malingerers and crime suspects. Fake amnesics perform very poorly at the task, deliberately scoring low, as they believe a good amnesic should - thereby giving the game away.

But so too, do so-called hypnotic amnesics, scoring with something like 50% accuracy overall.

The most telling finding of Wagstaff’s was the way in which hypnotic star-performers (those with the highest ‘hypnotised’ self-ratings) did not merely score at a 50% hit-rate - which you might expect if they genuinely did not know which hand had contained the coin - but they scored below this chance baseline. Effectively revealing that they knew damned well which hand contained the coin and were in most cases deliberately choosing the wrong hand. Hypnotic amnesia appears identical to everyday fakery and not at all like the clinical variety.

For me, hypnosis is a mostly – but not always – benign conspiracy between hypnotist and client to pretend something out-of-the-ordinary or otherwordly is going on, when in fact, both are simply playing a game. It may be ‘impression management’ on the subject’s part (ie. trying to act out the role of model hypnotic performer), or perhaps ‘conviction management’ (in being motivated to experience in hypnosis, subjects will try subtly to make it happen without feeling as if they themselves are controlling things). Whatever…

‘Hypnosis’ is a label, a package, a concept, a way of framing some perfectly ordinary sensations of absorption and relaxation whilst crediting the ‘hypnotist with the power to elicit said experiences, then going one further to conjure up perceived super-normal effects. The conspiracy is benign in the sense that no harm generally ensues – it can be fun, if acted out in that spirit - though there can be scope for abuse if a subject is too compliant or a hypnotist too manipulative.

Certain ‘Knowledge’ parallels are obvious, I think. Except the cult conspiracy between Master and devotee can be anything but benign or fun. You will find not only both ‘conviction management’ and ‘impression management’ happening on a self-destructive scale, but also a dysfunctional dependency state which arises from the shared belief that the Master’s authority is legitimate and that their fake understanding is more true than any public-domain, objective notion of truth.

I used to love that Incredible String Band song I quoted from at the top, but there is something slightly disturbing about that couplet: ‘If he’s kind and gentle too and loves the world a lot / His twilight words might melt the slush of what you have been taught…’ Bear in mind, that verse is dealing with ‘what is, and what is not’. As such, kindness, gentleness and loving the world a lot – however admirable in their own right – are suspect criteria for assessing objective reality, assuming that is what the song implies. (Mike Heron’s idea of a good book in those days would have probably been L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics!)

The hypnotist talks softly, gently, lovingly, even. But he is full of ‘what is not’, full of that which has no basis in reality (‘You have lost your memory, etc’). Ditto the Master on a grandiose scale – full of ‘I have come with more power than ever before…’ The subject or premie will acquiesce to such fantasies, provided they see no obvious harm to themselves and the alternative of not playing along feels dull by comparison.

Pretend you’re happy when you’re blue
It isn’t very hard to do
And you will find that happiness, my friend
So why don’t you pretend…?

Well, if you believe that, on your head be it…

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 15:10:36 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Can it be said? It CAN'T be said!
Message:
all truths are subjective and relative

Is that a fact? An objective and absolute fact I mean.

The statement all truths are subjective and relative is a contradiction -- it says nothing.

If we hold that it is a fact, that all truths are subjective and relative we have to say the statement itself is not a fact, but merely a subjective and relative belief. And that contradicts the statement!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 20:53:17 (EDT)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Spot on John T !
Message:
Objective staements like ' all objective statements are actually subjective' are not possible if you don't beleive in objective statements!!! Gawd!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 00:51:50 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Moley
Subject: Derrida exposed.
Message:
Radical interpretivists don't make statements like 'all truths are subjective and relative.' That would be considered a sophomoric interpretation of what they're saying. They know perfectly well they can't get away with that.

Anyway, it's perfectly legitimate to make non-falsifiable statements. It's just that they're useless. But most people don't know that, which means they aren't quite useless if your intent is to mislead. There's actually a very interesting history to this stuff, involving Wittgenstein and the 'Vienna Circle' and Karl Popper. Well, it's interesting to about 0.01% of the population.

I heard Derrida speak once, and found it quite fascinating. He's a very clever fellow, and part of that facility probably comes from the fact that he's Jewish, where the *interpretation* of the scripture is actually *more* holy than the scripture itself. Anyway, you can undo Derrida with a simple mathematical formula that expresses the sum of the total of all angles around all points on a singly connected solid, which is equal to S*360 - 720 (where S is the number of points or vertices). So the sum of all the angles around all points of a tetrahedron is 4*360 - 720, or 720 degrees. It turns out that 720 degrees is, in fact, another name for 'tetrahedron' in the language of angles. In other words, if you take the skin of a lion and start making cuts in it to lay it out perfectly flat on a perfectly flat floor, the sum of the angles created by the cuts will always be equal to 720 degrees. To put this another way the difference between any closed system and the rest of universe is always 720 degrees, or 1 tetrahedron. It's like the Heisenberg uncertainty constant, expressed as an angle.

Derrida just plays with that 720 degrees, because most people don't know it exists, and because he regards that sort of play as fun. It's his trick. Now you know.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 01:54:35 (EDT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: Relative Truths (long but not ot)
Message:
Thats all well and good... but hypnosis only works if you have a brand new shiny tape, well recorded by a good chum.

Mark my worms !

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:38:00 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Will ring later.. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:20:04 (EDT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: oh nigel.....
Message:
I wish you had the time and inclination to do something with Bjorns almost -logic , self appreciation and flimsy understanding of the finer points of human rights which he wraps around premie need to be heard vs his own credibility. the excuse of good- guy- wiht-english- as- second- language doesnt mask much.
What activist doesnt like to think that their contributions are soo valuable and what politcian doesnt agree?
But bjorn is using that questionable acknowledgement from polticans as a badge of crediblity here.

just griping- ignore me please

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:45:47 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: Re: oh nigel.....
Message:
Hi Zelda,

Bjorn's been making that same post for years - between flouncy exits and returns. I stopped reading his self-pitying whine when it became apparent he doesn't seem to read anybody's replies properly - even those of the people he attacks the most, Anth and Michael Dettmers. Yes, time and inclination would be the things, but someone else will have to do it.

- and gripe as much you like. (Must say I liked your recovering sarcastic post below)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 21:32:01 (EDT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: ya i know your right. + thanks [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 20:56:05 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Most enjoyable read. Thanks, Nige
Message:
If I had known that Applecore was anti-Dawkins I would have hesitated to defend his article posted here. I had never read the guy before. I was reacting not so much to his pro-American rah-rah-ism but all the moral and cultural relativism that was being spouted in the name of liberal fairness here at the time.

I have offered myself for hypnotism many a time but it has never worked for me. The one time it almost worked was when I followed instructions for self-hypnotism but I know that I was complicit in the (minimal) results and soon had a good laugh at my stupidity.

Yes, this feelgood New Age post-modernist relativism is my pet peeve too. But that's just my truth. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:32:23 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Can't U C Nige's agenda, Pat?
Message:
If I had known that Applecore was anti-Dawkins I would have hesitated to defend his article posted here. I had never read the guy before. I was reacting not so much to his pro-American rah-rah-ism but all the moral and cultural relativism that was being spouted in the name of liberal fairness here at the time.

I have offered myself for hypnotism many a time but it has never worked for me. The one time it almost worked was when I followed instructions for self-hypnotism but I know that I was complicit in the (minimal) results and soon had a good laugh at my stupidity.

Yes, this feelgood New Age post-modernist relativism is my pet peeve too. But that's just my truth. ;)


---

Nigel knows that you and I enjoyed and defended Appleyard's defense of America, in spite of Nigel's denunciation of same. He also knows that Gerry, in his eminent wisdom, has restricted 9/11 talk here as too devisive (what with all the fools who can't see the issue for what it really is). So Nigel found a way to get you and me, two Dawkins lovers, to kick the same cat he was reaching for a few weeks ago. No?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:37:09 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Jim
Subject: You're joking, right...?
Message:
Well I hope you are..re. secret agenda. Truly, I wouldn't have mentioned Appleyard if I thought it would raise the spectre of political discussion and detract from the rest of my post. Certainly I was making no reference to previous such threads here and wouldn't waste that many words on the guy. Actually when I went looking for the link I found the other day with the quote of Appleyard's where he disses Dawkins for his 'arrogance' in more forthright terms, I couldn't find it, so used the closest secondary ref I could find. Guess there's a slight similarity here with the Chomsky debate - you can agree/disagree with his political stance but admire his academic work - or vice versa - or both or neither. In Brian Appleyard's case, I don't find his style of argument persusaive in either sphere, but guess that's my individual subjectivity.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 03:18:05 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Sure [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:46:59 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Can't U C Nige's agenda, Pat?
Message:
Well, there I was trying to be charitable and diplomatic and deliberately NOT see that but, no, you can't leave well enough alone.

(I'm still smarting from Moley's digs at me in defense of her Nige. Moley, the detester of post-modernistic cultural relativism calling me to task about America's noble savage.)

But, I will tactfully side-step this issue here - or we can take it to AG where I can let my savage old fogy loose on the relativist heretics.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:51:28 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Pat, you can't DO that!
Message:
Pat,

You're skating too close to the edge. I almost pissed myself. I mean, that makes me pissed. Well, not now, exactly. Later, I think. It is Friday, isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 21:55:31 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: UK pissed or US pissed?
Message:
I'm looking over my shoulder right now to see if Gerry is about to pounce and delete this thread.

Could we just get pissed later say tomorrow morning when I'm not at work and could we do it on AG?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 18:18:08 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Cogito
Message:
Nige:

‘Cultural Theory’, as it is known, is (IMO) a pernicious mind-virus reaching epidemic proportions in Western humanities and social science departments: all truths are subjective and relative. Your truth is as true (or untrue) as my truth; nothing is certain. The enquiring philosophical mind can never know reality for there exist as many realities as there are individual, ‘fractured subjectivities’. You have no access to knowledge besides that which your cultural history allows, filters and defines: with no hard rock of objectivity to anchor our frail craft of understanding we are cast adrift to blob and slob about in a raging foment of uncertainty. You might as well be lost in the river of bondage to Maya as it flows into the New Age Sea of Solipsism…

Isn't the designation 'cultural theory' rather presumptuous? Having worked for and with one of the foremost lights in the study of culture I'm pretty sure that empiricism still holds a fairly lofty position, and the greatest 'theorist of culture' of all time (Max Weber) was unabashedly empirical.

The archetype of this debate was the 'Gadamer-Habermas' debates on method, won according to most estimations by H. in the very first engagement. Yet Gadamer never ever ever ever gave up, much like our own representatives of radical hermeneutics on the forum (Catweasel, Bjorn, CD, whoever). To him there *was* no criteria by which one could identify the winner of an argument, so therefore no standard existed by which one might ever end an argument... not even the famous 'stopping rule' which holds that once both sides have said the same thing three times in a row you might as well stop, because you're not likely to make any further progress.

I have frequently been able to prove that lines converging to a point are parallel, or that the center of a circle is outside the perimeter. (I have a certain facility with this sort of thing, having studied in my undergrad years with Bucky Fuller's coauthor, Arthur Loeb). This merely illustrates the fact that our conventional notions about opposition, convergence or resolution are erroneous... not that 'objective truth' doesn't exist. And, in fact, it is *always* possible to generate a progressive approximation that is 'good enough' for any particular application... so the oppositional issue hasn't been dealt with (except by people like Derrida who do no more than play with it the way a child plays in their own feces), because we don't need to. I have absolutely no need to scribe a perfect circle, nor does anyone else who has ever lived, or ever will live.

But I would give a lot to know what Descartes saw as the 'unity of all the sciences' in his dream, before he forgot it. I mean, just for the heck of it. It must have been a fine insight indeed.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:29:19 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Cogito
Message:
Was it H that said 'prove it?'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 18:13:44 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Thanks, Nige
Message:
Let me start by saying big, red flags go off for me whenever someone says 'YOUR truth' or 'MY truth'. To me it's like someone saying they're making a breakable promise. Oxymorons, both of them, they make no sense.

I want to comment on the 'deep pessimism' of atheism. Nigel, I'm worried. I'm worried that we built up these big, bullshit spiritual ideas because we can't stomach the realization of our stark, bleak existence otherwise. I'm worried that we still can't handle it, that it's just not enough in life. To tell you the truth, and this is no joke, Laurie and I sometimes rue the day we ever first read that Robert Wright article in Time. It was about 'adultery' but it was really about ev/psych. It got us to read Wright's book, The Moral Animal and that brought home, for the first time, the profound implications of evolution. Since then, just following my nose, I have to agree with Dawkins. However, most unfortunately, I don't agree with his thesis in Unweaving the Rainbow that real knowledge is so invigorating and exciting that it more than makes up for fate, God and whatever form of imaginary friends one's collected through the years. To me, all that spiritual stuff was such a great way to console myself when I worried about life, my mortality and others'. Now what I've got is the small comfort of knowing that at least I don't have to worry about charasee (e.g. coming back as a pig).

Beyond that, I enjoy reading about your close examination of hypnosis. Can hypnotists seduce women?
[ The article Nigel was too lazy to link to ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 00:59:59 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Thanks, Nige
Message:
I do believe I have seen you called a pig here on the forum.
I wish someone would write a book on why no one can escape problems,
and no one can go from success to success. How come at least one of us cant break out of the pack and win applause at every turn.
Some complete hero who shows us once and for all that with will power and intelligence we can move without obstacles and evade them if they are there and not err at all.
Someone that does not fall into any of the various forms of perspective problems. Someone that can sustain a state of mood that they choose.
Someone that can decide to be a certain way and behave a certain way and actually be able to do it without failure.

If someone can, than I say DNA rules.
If no one can, like it sure appears, it is not a DNA boundry we are running up against, but a boundry that looks like it had to be placed there. A limitation. A real boundry on us that speaks volumes.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 01:03:05 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: back on sunday [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 23:37:44 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Socialism as religion, and hypnosis (ot)
Message:
I'm worried that we still can't handle it, that it's just not enough in life. To tell you the truth, and this is no joke, Laurie and I sometimes rue the day we ever first read that Robert Wright article in Time.

Thelma Lavine often discusses the fact that for many atheists socialism fulfills the same purpose as belief in God (I realize you're not socialist). So she feels that in spite of the fact that the *control* issues raised by socialism have profound problems we're not through with it yet. Somehow I don't think Nigel is as put off by socialism as he is by religion, though at this point I can't see how the 'faith' issues are that different. I really enjoyed his post though. Doubt that he just sat down and rattled it off. It looks like something he mulled over for quite awhile.

I'll eventually get around to reading Dawkins. Tell you what, you read Lipset and I'll read Dawkins. I'm not sure which of Lipset's books I'd recommend though. Some are closer to the surface than others, and it depends on your interest. He's even written several on higher education, and one on Jews in America. He feels his best book, written with James Coleman and Martin Trow, was *Union Democracy*.

I had an experience with hypnosis that was kind of weird. I had two hypnosis treatments for smoking in the mid-eighties. I say the experience was weird because 1. It worked, whereas nothing else had even come close; 2. I never felt 'under' and never even felt that I had left normal waking consciousness; and 3. I had this strange experience as though someone had entered a room in my consciousness that I had lived in alone for all of my life, and by doing so had broken some sort of 'spell.' It was that experience that really *enabled* me to put the cigs away. In a sense it was almost the opposite of hypnotism. I had been caught in a pattern that I couldn't break, and someone 'broke into' that pattern, which curiously allowed me to change it. (See, I said it was weird.)

About not going under, the hypnotist also tape recorded the session and listening to it afterwards I didn't notice anything I hadn't noticed in the original session. No surprises, other than that 'shared room' thing.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 20:30:05 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Socialism is a poor substitute
Message:
I'm worried that we still can't handle it, that it's just not enough in life. To tell you the truth, and this is no joke, Laurie and I sometimes rue the day we ever first read that Robert Wright article in Time.

Thelma Lavine often discusses the fact that for many atheists socialism fulfills the same purpose as belief in God (I realize you're not socialist). So she feels that in spite of the fact that the *control* issues raised by socialism have profound problems we're not through with it yet. Somehow I don't think Nigel is as put off by socialism as he is by religion, though at this point I can't see how the 'faith' issues are that different. I really enjoyed his post though. Doubt that he just sat down and rattled it off. It looks like something he mulled over for quite awhile.

I'll eventually get around to reading Dawkins. Tell you what, you read Lipset and I'll read Dawkins. I'm not sure which of Lipset's books I'd recommend though. Some are closer to the surface than others, and it depends on your interest. He's even written several on higher education, and one on Jews in America. He feels his best book, written with James Coleman and Martin Trow, was *Union Democracy*.

I had an experience with hypnosis that was kind of weird. I had two hypnosis treatments for smoking in the mid-eighties. I say the experience was weird because 1. It worked, whereas nothing else had even come close; 2. I never felt 'under' and never even felt that I had left normal waking consciousness; and 3. I had this strange experience as though someone had entered a room in my consciousness that I had lived in alone for all of my life, and by doing so had broken some sort of 'spell.' It was that experience that really *enabled* me to put the cigs away. In a sense it was almost the opposite of hypnotism. I had been caught in a pattern that I couldn't break, and someone 'broke into' that pattern, which curiously allowed me to change it. (See, I said it was weird.)

About not going under, the hypnotist also tape recorded the session and listening to it afterwards I didn't notice anything I hadn't noticed in the original session. No surprises, other than that 'shared room' thing.

--Scott


---

Scott,

Faith in socialism strikes me as exceedingly different than faith in God. The former has nothing to compare with the magical invisible friend quality of the latter. That's the thing I think we atheists miss, or at least I do. (Mind you, I'm also giddy with relief getting rid of it. Go figure.)

Why should I read Lipset? Dawkins is going to convicne you that the notion of an intelligent designer's a pipe dream. What's Lipset going to say? I respect your intelligence and breadth of knowledge but I'm just asking, why Lipset?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 19:21:27 (EDT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Nigel rattling
Message:
Scott wrote:-

I really enjoyed his post though. Doubt that he just sat down and rattled it off. It looks like something he mulled over for quite awhile.

What you don't know, Scott, is that Nigel writes this stuff when he's managed to crawl back home from 10 pints of Crudgingtons XXXXXX. He can't remember a word the following day:-)

John the Crudgingtons XXXXXX fan although there are many fine Latvian brews as well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 21:02:57 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow,demon.co.uk
To: JHB
Subject: Fuckin' hell, John - you've blown my secret...
Message:
(hic!)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 20:48:54 (EDT)
From: bill-Hmmm, I will have to get some
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Nigel is regularly quite interesting [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 04:15:47 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Socialism: Christianity without Christ
Message:
Chuck and Andy and I were just talking about his tonight. In SF the zeitgeist is this feelgood, new-agey, post-modernist cultural, moral and political relativism - the religion of niceness (''if it feels good it must be okay'' and ''everything's cool, baby,'') of wanting to be everyone's friend.

Lenin called them left-wing communists (or ''useful idiots.'') I know it's not only in SF. It's in academia everywhere but there seem to be more academics and quasi academics here per square mile than...well almost anywhere.

It's rife among our generation and they have made it almost mainstream through teaching it in schools and universities - subconscious Marxists who have read The Communist Manifesto and have not seen that it is a cultic mind-fuck but have taken it's socalled altruism - Christianity without the embarassingly primitive Jehovah or the somewhat iffy Christ - and turned it into a new religion, feelgood nannyist socialism.

Of course they'd have a fit if the workers of the world really did unite. Meanwhile they enjoy telling the workers how to behave and what to think. They are on a mission to bring justice to the world. The new religion among academics is Nice-nanny socialism, new-agey relativism.

Well, whenever I get caught up in the desire to bring justice, I simply remember Hamlet who also wanted to do that.

And no, this is not OT because relativism is the root cause of premies being able to continue in their delusions, for greedy gurus to prosper and for idiotic cults to flourish.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 10:13:48 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Well, old leftie that I am..
Message:
I have to say I agree with every word, Pat. Moley's reading this book - supposedly about music theory (which is what her Master's is in, after all) - and it's called 'Noise: the political economy of Music', and it is the most unreadable shite imaginable by some pompus French ass called 'Jaques Attali' - pure mind-wank without a shred of musical sensibility, theoretical knowledge or anything remotely musical.

And don't get me started on Marxist sociologists or wimmin's studies...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 16:54:09 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Careful Nigel,
Message:
you may be a neocon after all. (Although Ronald Reagan perverted the term so much that it's no longer usable in it's original meaning.)

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 21:08:31 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Never in a million years...
Message:
..am I remotely neocon - but it would take too long to explain right now. Maybe soon on Anything Goes..
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 13:53:50 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: Well, old leftie that I am..
Message:
But I'm also a bit of a leftie. At least definitely liberal with a tendency to side with the underdog and a dislike of the very rich but I just can't wrap my head around the New Left.

I know you probably look down your nose at the unsophistication of Ayn Rand but, whenever, I hear about anything like Attali (whom I have heard of but not read), I think of Ellsworth P Toohey and the ''Gallant Gall-stone'' pretentious nonsense. Toohey will go down in history with Uriah Heep.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 18:45:26 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Jim
Subject: Not too lazy - I tried linking twice..
Message:
..and the forum software screwed up the result so badly I couldn't edit the original post and had to ask the big boss forum elf to remove it (Thanks Gerry).

I understand what you are saying, Jim, but Unweaving the Rainbow, is for me, a beautiful and surprising piece of work - one Dawkins' critics should read. A celebration of the best of human endeavour - scientific AND artistic. As good a place as any atheist can hope to find hope in, perhaps. But since when was understanding about finding hope? That's the Creationist error, n'est-ce pas? (G will explain later;)

I too have big problems with the Ev/Psych genes-for-everything angle (I have outlined these many times, often sharing the views of Dawkins' critics - Gould/Lewontin/Rose/Jones etc, ie. it is futile and erroneous to explain adult human behaviour in terms of genetic blueprints). And I am speaking as a pretend psychologist and unashamed Neodarwinian, here.

No, (and yes you are right) real knowledge is not so invigorating and exciting that it more than makes up for fate. (Tell that to your dying Grandmother..) Rock and Roll and bad drugs serve such purposes more effectively. But that isn't the point of scientific knowledge, is it? Heaven forbid it ever should be.

Science does one thing, Dylan Thomas, the blessed Jimi Hendrix and Miles Davis (pick your own) something different.

As to 'can hypnotists seduce women?' - can cult-leaders..?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 07:56:49 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: bernee@flashmail.com
To: Nigel
Subject: lock this thread & ban this poster
Message:
Only joking :)
Hi Nigel,
Just wanted to say, as one old string band fan to another, I enjoyed reading your post.
I am not sure that I understood some of it though - I have not come accross many of these 'Cultural Theorists' and, if they try to deny the existence of an objective reality, I am probably better off without them.
On my non-academic level it seems that although one man's meat is another man's poison when it comes to matters of taste, there are also universal realities such as gravity and death. To say that those laws of nature that mankind has discovered and proven to be constant are just a matter of opinion is downright daft.
Since foolishly basing my interpretation of reality on the 'knowledge' I have since been careful to go from the known ( provable, rational, and not just my own experience ) to the unknown but yet to be discovered.
One thing always troubles me though - Is there such a thing as objective beauty and, more importantly, an objective code of ethics. If such things exist how can we teach ourselves to recognise the beauty and have the moral strength to follow the code of ethics?

It's great to hear that you guys are into research into such things as neuroscience - sounds fascinating.
I wanted to be a neuroscientist but I didn't have the latin :) so I became a premie in cloud cuckoo land instead.
re: hypnosis you seem to have Paul Mckenna sussed..
benign conspiracy between hypnotist and client to pretend something out-of-the-ordinary or otherwordly is going on, when in fact, both are simply playing a game
and as for Mike Heron and gang, I used to go to all the concerts until they got into Scientology which was so dissapointing. At the last gig I went to ( I think it was the Rainbow ) every seat contained a copy of one of Hubbards books on dianetics - and the music just lacked the old free hippy spirit. - Real shame.
cheers
berni

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 00:15:11 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: berni
Subject: Hi, berni..
Message:
I meant to reply to your post earlier, but got side-tracked..


Just wanted to say, as one old string band fan to another, I enjoyed reading your post.
I am not sure that I understood some of it though - I have not come accross many of these 'Cultural Theorists' and, if they try to deny the existence of an objective reality, I am probably better off without them.

For sure.
On my non-academic level it seems that although one man's meat is another man's poison when it comes to matters of taste, there are also universal realities such as gravity and death. To say that those laws of nature that mankind has discovered and proven to be constant are just a matter of opinion is downright daft.

Exactly - but that's exactly the implication of what too many of these guys are writing. Common-sense flies out of the window once they start questioning the sources of our understanding of the world. Rather than (reasonably) pointing out that our knowledge of reality is inevitably mediated by cultural filters, they have to go the whole hog and (unreasonably) deny reality itself.


Since foolishly basing my interpretation of reality on the 'knowledge' I have since been careful to go from the known ( provable, rational, and not just my own experience ) to the unknown but yet to be discovered.
One thing always troubles me though - Is there such a thing as objective beauty and, more importantly, an objective code of ethics. If such things exist how can we teach ourselves to recognise the beauty and have the moral strength to follow the code of ethics?

I think beauty and ethics are different ball-games. The former is definitely subjective - though certain universal preferences do seem to exist - but the latter, while also subjective to some extent, must be negotiated with others. As I see it, we are social animals, and as such, if only for pragmatic reasons (ie. the safety and well-being of our friends and family) we have to establish codes of conduct which, as far as possible, reflect the wishes and desires of the greatest number. Hence democracy is essential (otherwise we don't know what those wishes are) as too are initiatives like The International Declaration of Human Rights for establishing some sort of a baseline for standards shared by all signitaories.

It's great to hear that you guys are into research into such things as neuroscience - sounds fascinating.

Armchair interest, berni. Neither Moley or I are involved in that kind of research. But Moley likes using neuro-think to challenge the brain-fug of cultural-relativism which is swamping her music department. And being a bit of a 'biological determinist', I like the neuro too for its challenge to the woollier psycho-analytic areas of psychology, where - much like the cultural theorists - 'make it up as you go along' seems to be pretty much the norm.

I wanted to be a neuroscientist but I didn't have the latin so I became a premie in cloud cuckoo land instead.

Ditto, but I only realised I wanted to be one about twenty years too late. (Got the latin, but not the chemistry).

re: hypnosis you seem to have Paul Mckenna sussed..
benign conspiracy between hypnotist and client to pretend something out-of-the-ordinary or otherwordly is going on, when in fact, both are simply playing a game

You bet. What is really funny, is when McKenna was in the high court three years ago, was charged with turning that stage-volunteer schizophrenic, he called Graham Wagstaff in as an expert witness (GW is an ultra-skeptic who is also my doctoral supe) to deny the 'power' of hypnosis to do anything. Fortunately, they won the case...

and as for Mike Heron and gang, I used to go to all the concerts until they got into Scientology which was so dissapointing. At the last gig I went to ( I think it was the Rainbow ) every seat contained a copy of one of Hubbards books on dianetics - and the music just lacked the old free hippy spirit. - Real shame.

Too right. I never discovered the Increds until about '69, and had no idea they were Hubbard-nuts for years, but definitely noticed the falling off of quality in their music from about '67 onwards. They all quit eventually, except Liquorice, who is still a member but seems to have vanished from the face of the planet, apparently..

Cheers,
Nige

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:30:11 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Ah yes,'String Band'..acidic memories! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:52:02 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: We're all still here...
Message:
no one has gone away....

waiting.....

acting much too loud and procrastinating .........

Yeah the early stuffwas best ....but I also liked 'U'.....in fact, scientology infected or not.....I liked all their stuff.

Too damn loyal.....always was my downfall....

Anyway, gotta go.....think Gerry's about to collar me :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 06:13:41 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Hi Nigel and thanks...
Message:
...for the considered reply.
I'm not surprised you got side-tracked - I'm amazed you find the time to contribute so many substantive posts.
I see your point about the social aspect to ethics, wasn't it Plato who had something to do with the concept of Justice? - I'll have to look it up. I love to chew the fat ( or the keyboard in this case ) over such matters as beauty, truth and ethics but I get the feeling Gerry doesn't like it as it is not on-topic. We seem to have got away with this thread though - maybe sneak some more OT stuff another time.
catch you later
berni
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:00:30 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: berni
Subject: No, Berni, OT's fine
Message:
I love to chew the fat ( or the keyboard in this case ) over such matters as beauty, truth and ethics but I get the feeling Gerry doesn't like it as it is not on-topic. We seem to have got away with this thread though - maybe sneak some more OT stuff another time.

Berni,

OT's fine. I'm sure Gerry will tell you that too if you ask him. But you saw what happened with the political arguments. The real fabric of our on-line community was renting itself asunder. This stuff, though, is great. Trust me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 15:26:40 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: No, Berni, OT's fine
Message:
Thanks Jim,
I trust you ( at least more than a certain guru I could mention )
However I don't think things were being 'rent asunder' (although I do like that phrase) - the debate was just getting a bit heated in the emotional aftermath of one of the worst close-to-home disasters most of us have ever experienced. Some of us needed to talk about it !
I still think such matters of life and death are relevant to any forum but I think I am getting the picture of what subjects are ok and what's to be avoided.
Anyway, I can only get locked, trashed or banned. ( and in future if I compose a lengthy epistle I will save it before posting )
BTW I hope you carry on being your sarcastic/witty self - however if it's a newcomer, maybe just get to know him/her a little before bringing out the heavy artillery?
berni
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 15:45:16 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: berni
Subject: maybe, maybe not
Message:
Is there such a thing as objective beauty and, more importantly, an objective code of ethics. If such things exist how can we teach ourselves to recognise the beauty and have the moral strength to follow the code of ethics?

Well, Poets have thought so -- or at least Keats did in the immortal poem
Ode on a Grecian Urn
Beauty is truth, truth, beauty, -- that is all
Ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know

But even if this is true, it could still be impossible to prove it! For what it's worth, it is a fact (!) that not all truths are provable.

As for an objective code of ethics, well, I'd like to think so. It all seems somehow pointless if nothing matters, doesn't it? If morality matters, it has to be something to do with being consciousness and with freewill. I say this because it hardly makes sense to regard a bacillus or tornado as a moral agent, and hardly possible not to think of conscious agents with free will as having moral responsibilities.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 06:37:35 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: A thing of beauty is a joy forever
Message:
as the man himself said.

Hi John,

Thanks for the link - it's another world Poetry where emotions and feelings take priority over facts and figures, and Keats was not the only one who believed that beauty is not just in the eye of the beholder - although many have said that you have to train your eye to recognise it.
There was an interesting t.v. programme recently about the human face in which John Cleese talked about the perfect symmetry and suggested that beauty was a mathematical formula - nose at a certain position in relation to the eyes and mouth etc.... I'm not too convinced by this, although the artists out there will probably know more about the perfect combination of shape, texture and colour.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not all truths are provable' - surely if something happens time after time in any given conditions we have proved it to be true - although we may not know why.
The ethics question is, IMHO, so important. I believe that there is an absolute 'best' way to behave in every situation. The problem is knowing what it is and then the even bigger problem of having the courage and selflessness to act on that knowledge.
best wishes
berni

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 14:43:00 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: berni
Subject: not knowing what's known
Message:
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not all truths are provable' - surely if something happens time after time in any given conditions we have proved it to be true - although we may not know why.
The ethics question is, IMHO, so important. I believe that there is an absolute 'best' way to behave in every situation. The problem is knowing what it is and then the even bigger problem of having the courage and selflessness to act on that knowledge.

I've filched what follows from a site about Godel:>>> every sufficiently powerful edifice of logic contains a statement which is true but not provable. This means the dream of a unitary system in which all mathematical truths are deduced from a handful of axioms cannot be realised.

His proof shook the structure of mathematics to its very foundation. Godel's ideas also have profound implications for computer science, as well as affecting mathematics, logic, philosophy, and truth itself. <<<

But why do you believe that there is an absolute 'best' way to behave in every situation? I tend to think that because the consequences of an action go on (and on and so on) one can never really know what one's doing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 16:52:20 (EDT)
From: berni
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: not knowing what's known
Message:
Hi John,
This looks like deep logical waters to me and I am probably not qualified to comment - but I am not sure I trust someone (Godel) who commited suicide by starving himself to death because he thought the doctors caring for him were intent on poisoning him.
I suppose he could have been right? But being featured in a magazine called She-bang? sounds like a leg-pull :)
Just being facetious - thanks for the link - the article and the magazine look interesting.
Now Aristotle, who is mentioned in the article, was good at Ethics I seem to remember.

berni

p.s. re: one can never really know what one's doing.
I can relate to that - though we can but try to find out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index