Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00172)

Hi Wry, 

As usual Brian/Bridgitte, with his/her anti theosophical propaganda, seeks to 
confuse. 

"GU Krishnamurti" (actually UG [Uppaluri Gopala] Krishnamurti) and Jidda 
Krishnamurti, whom you apparently are interested in -- are not the same 
character. It's like comparing apples to oranges (or should I say Lemons)? 

I appreciate and agree with your interest in Bohm and Hiley with respect to 
their metaphysical ideas about the "implicate" and "explicate" order of 
reality -- implying that immaterial consciousness and material substance are 
two different multi-spatial aspects of a holistic universal space. Apropos, 
you might also be interested in a theosophically consistent and more or less 
scientific view of this same idea that is also consistent with 
Superstring/M-brane theories that speak of multidimensional fields within the 
sub-quantum vacuum of space and the origin of all things, visible and 
invisible, as "strings" (or rays) of vibrating force emanating from the 
zero-point-instant of primal space. If so, take a look at: 
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ABC_bw.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

For some non technical background unformation on string theory, go to:
http://superstringtheory.com/

You might also be interested in this interview with Hiley.
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1997/interview.html 

As a matter of general interest, I've noted that Brian/Brigitte has now begun 
trolling the Journal of Consciousness Studies online forum with second hand 
quoted material with the aim of debunking any metaphysical theory of 
consciousness that doesn't conform with his/her ideas of the infallibility of 
reductive-objective material scientific theories (particularly, about the 
epiphenomenal, material cause and nature of consciousness). 

Of course, it's obvious that -- since these material "scientific" theories, 
none of which can explain the cause and nature of will, mind or awareness, 
are directly opposed to the metaphysical ideas of Bohm, as well as HPB and 
ABC theory, all of which can explain these "hard problems" -- BM, as a 
scientific dogmatist, who can't stand that the metaphysical ideas might be 
accepted as a legitimate basis of scientific study of consciousness, now has 
to gratuitously harangue those serious multi-disciplined online forums with 
anti metaphysical propaganda. Incidentally, the subtitle of the *Journal of 
Consciousness Studies* is "Controversies in Science and the Humanities." Most 
online participants involved in such studies are scientists, philosophers, 
psychologists, etc., who "speak for themselves." 

Hope this is useful information.

LHM

In a message dated 09/25/02 2:46:10 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

>HI Brian. I guess you don't know this, but one of my special subjects of
>interest for much of my life has been Krishnamurti. I have enquired very
>deeply into the ideas he was talking about, had many Krishnamurti enquiries
>in my home and attended them in other people's homes. I also had the good
>fortune to hear Krishnamurti speak. In the last ten years my enquiry has
>turned in a interesting direction, as I have, in some respects, come to see
>the way Krishnamurti handled material as somewhat idealistic, though for
>me, this does not diminish my personal assessment of his extraordinary 
>value to humanity.
>
>I got on theosophy lists by mistake, as I joined Universal Seekers thinking
>to talk about Krishnamurti. To me, Krishnamurti, as a entity, is not
>active, as Krishnamurti is dead. His approach to life is there in his books
>as a doorway for people who are interested in going into what he is saying,
>through enquiry, and making it their own, when and if they come to
>understand it. But the doorway is not active. It is the person who is doing
>the enquiring in present time who creates the active force. When I first
>found Krishnamurti's work, by chance, in a library when I was 27, I could
>not believe my good fortune. At times I was so excited about his ideas,
>that, if I could find no one else to enquire with, I initiated conversations
>with strangers at bus stops. Many of my customers have heard more about
>Krishnamurti than the product I was selling. The experience of being alive
>on earth at the same time as this great man , the extraordinary thrill of
>this, is beyond description. It has shaped my whole existence. There was
>a soft rich purple light in the last years that I have very rarely, if ever,
>seen since. But the teaching of Krishnamurti, as the teaching of any great
>teacher, was time -appropriate. It not only occurred at a specific time,
>but it was intelligently designed for that time. My understanding is that
>Krishnamurti hit the mark one would expect of a world teachers in that he
>gave humanity a specific shock that moved its development forward at a
>radical pace. In other words, he accelerated the spiritual development of
>humanity. In my opinion, he did this by bringing into a effect a convergence
>of science with the humanities. Some new age scientists who have overly
>embraced Jungian psychology or born again Christians attempting to use
>science to prove the existence of the human "soul" may not be to your or
>my taste, but this is just a tiny part of it. People here do not know of my
>interest in science. I am specifically interested in how something in the
>theory of David Bohm can be applied to humans. I do not care to go into
>this here, but if you know the work of Bohm and Hiley, you will know what
>I am speaking of.
>
>Anyway, thank you for bringing up this point of "way back then," as someone
>might have misunderstood. Even something that happened a moment ago is
>back then. This is perhaps what K was talking about when he said something to
>the effect of, the past is dead. In terms of the time -appropriateness of any
>given material, it is interesting to note, that due to certain factors of
>the post-industrial revolution, especially computers, and the very
>converging of science with the humanities that K brought about, humanity
>is developing at a accelerating speed. There is always something more to
>learned about working with people and working together. Maybe sometime,
>if even more of an active force develops on this list then is already here, 
we
>can enquire together into what it would take to make the kind of adjustment
>that would keep a teaching alive without tampering with its essential
>content. When I have something that is very precious to me, of course I
>want to keep it in its original form, but I really do not know what is
>going to happen next. This means I do not know what I am going to do next.
>I have an "idea" of what it is, based on what I know about how things are
>going, but what if there is a radical shift or a sudden inspiration? This
>is the thrill. Sincerely, Wry
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "brianmuehlbach" <brianmuehlbach@yahoo.com>
>To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 4:21 PM
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Freud, fraud, and the White Brotherhood.
>
>
>> Wry: But all that was then.
>>
>> Brian: Don't know if it interests you, but GU Krishnamurti is still very
>> much active.
>>
>> --- In theos-talk@y..., "wry" <wry1111@e...> wrote:
>> > Hi Brian. The more we all enquire, the more we will change. (I most
>> > appreciate Leon's message to me on the subject of wonder. It caused
>> me to
>> > ponder very deeply, and there was a big break through that has
>> affected my
>> > whole life. I just read your message this morning, George. It is very
>> > interesting. I also thank Dalval, whose original message from Sept.
>5,
>> about
>> > making bread, inspired me to ask the question about wonder. The
>> reason I
>> > haven't responded yet is that I'm still pondering this subject).
>> >
>> > Brian, I hope you and everyone got the key point of my message,
>> something
>> > about subjectivity and objectivity. It is subtle, yet it is insidious
>and
>> > pervasive, the way the institution of Freudian psychology has affected
>> the
>> > way westerners think (handle material). When I choose someone else
>> to help
>> > me interpret or to interpret for me, or when I encourage others to
>> choose me
>> > to interpret for them, this perpetrates both ignorance and authority.
>> >
>> > Interpretation relates to discrimination, something we all probably
>> need to
>> > develop to a higher degree. We do this by verifying an objective
>> reality,
>> > not by analyzing material from out of our own conditioning. This
>> means that
>> > if I believe "God" is an old man with a long beard sitting up in the
>sky,
>> I
>> > will believe many other things also. But once I get a taste of the
>plain
>> old
>> > sky and myself alone with it, without a movement away from
>> insecurity into
>> > thought (imagery), I become able to discriminate this from that a
>little
>> > more clearly. For instance I may realize that my own insecurity was
>> > connected to the image of the old man in the sky, or at least to the
>> > willingness to believe what someone else told me, even after I
>> > chronologically passed the age of eight and started to approach the
>> age of
>> > reason.
>> >
>> > This race stuff has always turned me off, and it is one of the reasons
>I
>> > have not delved into theosophy more deeply in the past. How does the
>> > average theosophist deal with it? I would appreciate any honest
>> answers
>> > people can give out here. As far as a universal brotherhood goes,
>that
>> > seems like an oxymoron. If one develops to the highest possible
>> degree, one
>> > may discover if this is true or not. In the meantime, I do not
>> understand
>> > how the CONCEPT of this performs any function except that of keeping
>> people
>> > from developing. I am curious about what your personal payoff is for
>> > working on this list, but I do not necessarily expect you to answer
>out
>> > here. That is perhaps between you and your "God", and maybe it
>> should be.
>> >
>> > One of the biggest problems most people, including myself, have in
>> handling
>> > material a little more objectively is in learning to break things apart.
>> > When we eat a fish, we do not need to eat the bones also. We can
>> take the
>> > bones out. Same with concepts. Everything is to be verified. But how
>> to do
>> > this? Perhaps we start with a plain house, a plain car, a plain BODY,
>> as if
>> > seen from outside, impartially, without interpretation, AS IT IS. Maybe
>> > later we get to ideas. Madame Blavatsky's material, like anything else,
>> is
>> > grist for the milll of a mature discrimination. We do not need to
>and
>> > cannot understand everything she was doing way back then. She may
>> have
>> > needed funding to support her work, and, for this reason, designed
>> things
>> > in a certain way. We must remember that from her activities and other
>> > interconnected factors was eventually fruited a KRISHNAMURTI, who,
>> in my
>> > opinion, was one of the greatest spiritual teachers humanity has ever
>> known.
>> > He shucked off theosophy, as a butterfly shucks off a cocoon, but he
>> also
>> > EMERGED from it. But all that was then. This is now. Every action is
>> time
>> > appropriate. The less my movement is correlated to a living now, the
>> less
>> > likely I am to meet "the masters," whatever that may mean to me. ---
>> --
>> > Original Message -----
>> > From: "brianmuehlbach" <brianmuehlbach@y...>
>> > To: <theos-talk@y...>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:21 AM
>> > Subject: Theos-World Freud, fraud, and the White Brotherhood.
>> >
>> >
>> > > Wry: We have learned, in the last twenty years, that childhood
>> sexual
>> > > abuse is really quite common, not an oddity.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Brian: Giving Freud's faking the "Oedipus Complex," by continuing
>> > > to attribute it to his patients it did the opposite of helping.
>> > >
>> > > That is where Masson's publication of the Freud/Fliess letters
>> > > deserve credit. It uncovered a scientific fraud on the cost of one
>of
>> the
>> > > most important assets in the world we have, children.
>> > >
>> > > And yes true, and even when even more fraudulant then Freuds
>> fraud,
>> > > many people indeed firmly believe that Blavatsky materialized cups
>> > > and saucers and that the "Mahatmas" are right when they claim
>> that
>> > > about 80% of the world population today belong to "fallen degraded
>> > > semblances" :
>> > >
>> > > "The highest race physical intellectuality is the last sub-race
>of
>> > > the fifth - yourselves the white conquerors.
>> > > The majority of mankind belongs to the fallen, degraded
>> semblances of
>> > > humanity", and belongs to the fourth Root race, the degenerated
>> > > Chinaman, Malayans, Mongolians, Tibetans, Javanese, , etc., etc.,
>> > > etc."
>> > > K.H. (The
>Mahatma
>> > Letters)
>> > >
>> > > Wry: Believers will believe unless you give them something to
>> replace
>> > > it with.
>> > >
>> > > Brian: Can you demonstrate it ?
>> > >
>> > > My suggestion is that coupled with its claimed "Atlantean" or
>> > > even "Lemurian" antiqity, the idea that these teachings are
>> mediated
>> > > by a Brotherhood of perfected men wich has watched over the
>> unfolding
>> > > of human evolution "from its inception," maybe has something to do
>> with
>> > > the belief.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Brian
>> > >
>> > > --- In theos-talk@y..., "wry" <wry1111@e...> wrote:
>> > > > Hi Brian and Everyone. Sorry, but I sent a messed-up and
>> incomplete
>> > > draft by mistake, so here is a better copy.
>> > > >
>> > > > I mentioned Jeffrey Masson in a particular CONTEXT, to illustrate
>> > > a
>> > > point, so, to go into the subject a little further: For those of
>you
>> > > who
>> > > missed out on the huge flap (stink) that Masson, one little person,
>> > > caused for an institution, that, in his opinion (and mine) had had
>> > > and
>> > > was continuing to have a subtle, pervasive detrimental effect on
>> > > human
>> > > society. Let me go into it a little. It has been many years since
>I
>> > > examined this material, but I think my memory is pretty clear. I
>do
>> > > not
>> > > know if, as you say, the institution of Freudian psychology
>> > > "withstood the
>> > > attack from Masson." I personally believe his actions greatly
>> > > weakened
>> > > this institution. As a direct result of an association with him,
>the
>> > > works of
>> > > the German psychoanalyst, Alice Miller, such as "The Drama of the
>> > > Gifted Child." and "Thou Shall Not Be Aware, Society's Betrayal
>of
>> > > the
>> > > Child," as well as her many other books were translated into English
>> > > and became wildly popular in the United States, which radically
>> > > affected
>> > > people's attitudes toward child abuse and led to the taking of
>> > > responsibility by adults. Also as a result of this flap, Masson's
>> > > intelligent,
>> > > well written anti-therapy books, "Against Therapy," which has
>> become
>> > > a
>> > > classic, as well as "Final Analysis, The making and the Unmaking
>of
>> a
>> > > Psychoanalyst," "A Dark Science, Women, Sexuality, and
>> Psychoanalysis
>> > > in the 19th Century," as well as "The Assault on Truth, Freud's
>> > > Suppression of the Seduction Theory," achieved great popularity and
>> > > were read by many. I have all these books, as well as many Alice
>> > > Miller
>> > > books in my library and recommend "Against Therapy" and "The
>> Drama
>> > > of the Gifted Child" as worth purchasing. "My Father's Guru" was,
>in
>> > > my
>> > > opinion, an insignificant work, and I have not read his series of
>> > > books
>> > > about animals, which followed this.
>> > > >
>> > > > I get the feeling you have read the assessment you give of Masson
>> > > in
>> > > a book and are simply parroting someone else's words. Maybe
>> there is
>> > > some truth to what Daniel has suggested. I come to this conclusion
>> > > because there seems to be no original ideas in your message to me,
>> > > and I also do not see what point you are attempting to make that
>is
>> > > of
>> > > any generative value. I used the example of Masson to illustrate
>> > > something about true debunking and the possibility of changing
>> > > society.
>> > > Also, my assessment and understanding of Masson is not copied
>> from
>> > > someone. It is my own. (I still like your posts, though, as they
>are
>> > > sort of
>> > > interesting).
>> > > >
>> > > > "Against Therapy" received a lot of publicity due to a very
>> > > lengthy,
>> > > much publicized trial, in which Masson sued a popular writer, Janet
>> > > Malcolm, for some misquotes in an article she wrote about him for
>> the
>> > > New Yorker, which was also published in book form, "In the Freud
>> > > Archives." This book I also own and I recommend it as an interesting
>> > > and fun, though perhaps somewhat inaccurate read. This story,
>> which
>> > > tells what happened when Masson became friends with Anna Freud
>> and
>> > > was appointed as secretary of the Freud Archives, took place way
>> back
>> > > when, in the early 1980's, 1981 I believe, and you will read here
>> > > about a
>> > > most interesting character, Peter Swales, a "follower" of the
>> > > teachings
>> > > of Gurdjieff, and the pivotal role he played in the unfolding of
>this
>> > > whole
>> > > saga by prematurely leaking to the New York Times (at what turned
>> out
>> > > to be perhaps exactly the right moment) Jeffrey Masson's plan to
>> > > expose
>> > > Freud.
>> > > >
>> > > > The teaching of Gurdjieff is in RADICAL contradiction to the
>> > > teaching
>> > > of psychoanalysis, as Gurdjieff emphasized objective physical reality
>> > > to
>> > > be the basis of sane, intelligent human experience, and this is a
>> > > non-
>> > > analytical model, whereas psychoanalysis emphasizes individual
>> > > subjective interpretation to be the basis, and is an analytical
>> > > model. The
>> > > difference between these two is the difference between building a
>> > > house
>> > > on sheer rock and building a house on shifting sand.
>> > > >
>> > > > I became interested in Masson at the time of the lawsuit and
>> > > subsequently researched the story for a recreational pastime, but
>> the
>> > > reason I have chosen to put this material out here is to illustrate
>a
>> > > point.
>> > > This was a situation where a disillusioned person, possibly with
>> some
>> > > kind of bug up his - - - - , (but(t) so what?) saw and seized an
>> > > opportunity to do something which could potentially have a major
>> > > effect
>> > > upon society. There is no point in going into Freud's abandonment
>of
>> > > the
>> > > seduction theory here, but some of his letters relating to this were
>> > > deliberately suppressed. This was dishonest. Some might say, "but
>> who
>> > > cares? Most of us are dishonest much of the time, anyway." The
>> point
>> > > is
>> > > that this institution was affecting human society and human
>> > > relationship
>> > > in a way that decreased the potential for the average person to
>> > > become
>> > > honest and perpetrated authority based on a view of reality that
>was
>> > > false, as it did not connect the adult, who was physically abusing
>> > > the
>> > > child, to the child. The onus to adjust was on the child, and this
>> > > did not
>> > > lead to the transformation of the individual and therefore of society.
>> > > >
>> > > > We have learned, in the last twenty years, that childhood sexual
>> > > abuse is really quite common, not an oddity. There is now an
>> emphasis
>> > > on the taking of responsibility by the adult. IT IS NOT SO MUCH
>> ABOUT
>> > > INTERPRETATION BUT ABOUT REALITY. This shift in viewpoint has
>> > > affected all aspects of society. This is a direct result of the work
>> > > of
>> > > Jeffrey Masson, interconnected with some other factors, but none
>> the
>> > > less incremental to the shift. Psychiatry as an institution is
>> > > weakened.
>> > > People do not place as much trust in it as previously. Therapists
>are
>> > > not
>> > > respected to the degree they once were. The point is that Masson
>> (and
>> > > Swales) entered at a juncture that was critical. I cannot see any
>> > > real
>> > > point in trying to debunk Madame Blavatsky. If you believe
>> > > theosophists
>> > > have a wrong view, there are other approaches you can take, such
>> as
>> > > enquiry, that are more intelligent. It will not make the presses
>that
>> > > Madame Blavatsky faked a psychic incident over 100 years ago. It
>> will
>> > > not change anything on this list either.
>> > > >
>> > > > Believers will believe unless you give them something to replace
>it
>> > > with, but if you tell them another way is true without showing them,
>> > > this
>> > > is the same as authority perpetrating belief. Madame Blavatsky did
>> > > not
>> > > cause this belief, though she may have contributed to it. There
>is a
>> > > dynamic within the individual person. Unless this is explored through
>> > > an
>> > > enquiry that is interesting to such person, there is no learning.
>It
>> > > is not
>> > > about what happened before, but about what is happening within
>> each
>> > > of us now. Your habit of so-called debunking, in my opinion,
>> > > discourages
>> > > the establishment of any real method by which people might come
>> to
>> > > verify physical reality. Such verification would take place in
>> > > present time,
>> > > and cannot be done by looking back. Sincerely, Wry