--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On Jan 31, 2011, at 7:04 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > Your turn. What movies did you loathe this year? > > My problem is 1) I watch so many damn movies, I don't > often remember the titles of the good ones...fuggedabout > the BAD ones...
I completely understand. When I wrote my thread-starter yesterday, I actually had to scan through my list of movies that I'd downloaded and seen this past year to remember the real stinkers. If I hadn't done that, I wouldn't have been able to remember them, because they were blessedly gone from my memory. :-) > Eat, Pray, Love was a bad one, esp. given all the hype. > Religious narcissism at it's best. Or worst. Self-indulgence and self-importance and "It's all about me" squared. > I was a fan of Sex and the City when it was on TV. I > tried really, really hard to love Sex and the City 2, > but instead I just loved watching how bad it was and > reveling in that badness. The thing is, it wasn't just a bad movie. Its whole concept was to present four of the most unattractive women in the history of TV or movies *as if they not only were attractive but worthy of envy and to be admired*. The movie so completely missed the point of what it is to be human that it was scary. > Legion truly sucked. Yup. Blotted that one out, so much so that I forgot to mention it. :-) > Inception tried so, so hard, but even Cialis couldn't > have helped this movie get it up. Great effects, but > in the end it was a supernatural thriller geared towards > a Megachurch Christian videogamer level of religious > imagination. If you still have repressed The Matrix > fantasy material in your unconscious that makes you > wonder if you're in a dream within a dream, that could > end all any time (but actually keeps going on and on > and on), then you'll probably like this movie. Likewise, > Ekhart Tolle fans will probably like it's depth. I completely agree. I have actually liked Nolan's movies in the past, but "Inception" was just mediocrity personified. Like you, the fact that anyone saw anything profound in it amazes me as much as anyone seeing pro- fundity in Maharishi's endlessly-recycled intro lectures. > Judy Review: I've never watched a SAW movie yet, and I > could care less they put one out in 3D. I'm certain > enuff it sucked, that I didn't bother to watch it, > even in 2D, even without Mel Gibson. This quip, however, is why I'm really replying. It nails the essence of our resident quester-after- authority almost as well as azgrey's brilliant "So little to say and so many posts used proving it." Besides, we all know that, having hoist herself on her own petard of not being able to control herself, Judy is sitting out there reading every word of every post, fuming and spitting that she can't leap in and "correct" them. Well, here's one that she'll have to wait until 12:01 Central time Friday to "correct." :-) I think it's about time that someone pointed out that the person on this forum who most consistently sets herself up as an "authority" has none. It can be accurately stated that Judy Stein possibly *has the least actual spiritual experience of anyone on this forum*. Think about it. Pretty much the *only* things she's ever done in terms of actual hands-on spiritual practice is to meditate regularly and watch a few videotapes. She's spent (as far as I can tell) only one short period of her life "rounding." She never became a TM teacher, and most tellingly, the person who considers herself qualified to speak authori- tatively about Maharishi and "what he taught" never was even in the same room with him. She's never been (again, as far as I can tell) in the same room with ANY guru or spiritual teacher. Her relationship *with* spiritual teachers is exactly the same as what you suggest about her relationship with the movies she offers opinions on, never having seen them. It's all fantasy, all in her head. And the clincher is that she feels that that is *enough* to pose as an authority about them. I'm really not sure which came first, the choice of profession as a petty tyrant who gets to impose her opinions on others (that is, being an editor) or the desire to impose her laughable "authority" on others, which led her to become an editor. It's a real chicken- and-egg situation. But again, I think it's worth pointing out that *even within the realm of her supposed experience* (editing, and the supposed mastery of words), she's a really shitty writer. What else can you call someone who has to spend a quarter of her posts every week trying to claim that others "misunderstood" or "misrepresented" what she wrote and having to re-write it? A real writer just writes and allows the writing to stand on its own, like azgrey did. His brilliant insight stands on its own, accurate and self-contained. Judy would require 10 posts and double that number of insults to not make her point even a fraction as well. She actually seems to believe that I still read her posts. I can tell that from the first few lines of her posts that I see in Message View, which is all that I ever read. There is no POINT in reading more. She's never going to say anything worth reading; end of story. And the *reason* for this is that she doesn't have the breadth of experience necessary to have *earned* the aura of "authority" she likes to portray herself as having. She's an armchair seeker who has never done anything more than read *about* spirituality or watch it on TV. And it's the same with the other things she poses as an authority about after reading some article about them. One wonders at times whether the professional editor who likes to throw around the word "phony" has ever looked that word up. There is no there there. "Authority" -- whether in a spiritual context or a mundane one, is conferred on someone based on what they've DONE, not what they have read about other people doing. Judy has never understood this. And it looks as if she never will. Why should anyone waste time reading the procla- mations of someone parroting experiences that are at best second-hand when they could be off having real experiences of their own, and learning about things first-hand? Authority must be earned. It is conferred on the basis of having gotten off your butt and DONE some- thing. Judy Stein has never in her life done anything to deserve the authority she postures as having. End of story.
