--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@...> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of tartbrain > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:53 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] When It Started to Get Crazy > > > > > > Who of us had not written that as our assessment of the Movement at this or > that time, for this or that project. > > And there are many ways of looking at the same situation. What was "crazy" > for one person was not crazy for another. Part of this may be due to > different perspectives on what was happening. > > It appears many comments about "crazy days, crazy projects, strange > behavior" is from a linear, project management sort of perspective -- > thinking if we are trying to accomplish X -- this is NOT the way to do it. > Or, alternatively, "why the hell are we doing project X". There are other > perspectives. Some may be closer to what MMY was actually doing. > > I'll state a perspective, not THE perspective, simply -- without the > nuances. The World Plan, Heaven on Earth, MIU, big projects, unconventional > behavior, etc were not about such initiatives. They were simply tools for > MMY to help us break our boundaries. > > Do you think conventional projects, plans and implementation are going to > break boundaries? No, they generally confirm the status quo. On the other > hand, crazy, outlandish, odd, squirmish projects were just that because we > had inner attachments, ego issues, projections, assumptions about how things > should be and what is normal, etc. Huge and or crazy projects, often both > were a set of tools that MMY used to break these internal boundaries. > > The outer fruits of the actions were up to nature -- and not the focus. > > And the ultimate boundary breaker - his sexual affairs. Actually, he hated > sex. But he made a great sacrifice, knowing that someday, the whole thing > would go public and break boundaries big time. > > If you don't like that theory, how about this?: both the affairs and the > whacky projects were symptomatic of a brilliant, highly-evolved man who may > not have been as fully enlightened as he thought he was, and whose > unresolved issues threw him off course. >
That may also be true. I was presenting a perspective, more formally a hypothesis. I am not tied to the hypothesis I presented. The validity of a hypothesis is how well it explains observed data. (And if the model can successfully predict future outcomes.) Both hypotheses could explain the "craziness". Or something in between. I said I left out the nuances -- for brevity and simplicity. And we each have our own data points. You may have seen crazy stuff that the hypothesis that I riffed on does not well explain. I may have some observations and experience which is consistent with the hypothesis and less consistent with yours. And vice versa. I can question the value of riffing on such hypotheses. Its not to rationalize the behavior. (Rationality per se is not a strong component of the hypothesis I laid out.) If anything, its an exercise in not being overly attached to a single perspective, to not assume one knows anything with certainty. (a la, "how do you know that's true") My life, inner and outer, is not much different either way. I don't have a vested emotional, intellectual or existential interest in either or any such hypotheses. I explored a thought. It may or may not grist for further conversation. Such is the way with posting.
