Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00173)

Hi Leon. Thanks VERY much for this message. I thought maybe the GU was some
exotic theosophical surname for Krishnamurti, but UG Krishnamurti?. Ugh and
yuk. Brian, why did you say this? I personally don't have a problem with
someone being provocative, if you can fit it into a grander scheme, but this
is senseless. What aim could you possibly have in saying this. I guess it
could be a very odd kind of humor. Maybe Brian is telling me I am too
serious and identified with what I am doing, which is probably true, and
this is a subtle, funny way of doing it. Actually, thanks, Brian. I'm not
saying this as a tactic, but I genuinely mean it. I like Brian.

I think, if we all try to approach material from questions, rather than
answers, a lot of the difficulties with Brian will be resolved. The science
part of your message and the links I will look over later, and maybe leave a
message some other time. Sincerely, Wry

----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Freud, fraud, and the White Brotherhood.


> 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
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>