Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
On 1/13/2014 12:04 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *You responded to Ann and me /before/ Barry instructed you to ignore us. If you intend to ignore that instruction and continue to make your own decisions about what to respond to, that's good, I approve.* Maybe we should add this admonition to the list of internet protocols. 1. Always check with Judy before you post to Barry, for her approval. 2. Make your own decisions about what to respond to, unless it's Barry. 3. Don't respond to Ann or Judy, just ignore them and respond to Barry.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
s3; The uni-sex dress-code, which uni-sex dress-code could you favor for us? Which one? The bib-overall long has been a great equalizer. Liberating and very fitting in so many ways. -Buck s3raphita wrote: I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code. Re Tolstoy gave the right advice.: Possibly. But, as I said, it's the hypocrisy of Tolstoy that grates with me. The English conservative journalist Malcolm Muggeridge (a true British eccentric but a first-rate broadcaster) was a big fan of Tolstoy. One time in the 1960s he gave a talk attacking sexual promiscuity. To be fair to Muggeridge he did mention in the talk that as his audience were all young they couldn't accept or comprehend what he was saying. They would only understand him when they matured. An acquaintance of his later claimed that Muggeridge said to him at the time that if he had been a student in those heady sixties days he'd have slept with all the girls he could! To me the key is that you should always be true to what you are; who you are; where you're at. And as the sexual drive is one of the strongest impulses pushing us along we have a choice: 1) go with the flow, in which case you can draw on your sex energy to motivate you in life's struggle or 2) resist the sex impulse, in which case you'll spend your life labouring *against* your own body energies, as well as having to cope with the problems life throws at you. I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re Tolstoy gave the right advice.: Possibly. But, as I said, it's the hypocrisy of Tolstoy that grates with me. Om s3, which hypocrisy bothers you more? Tolstoy doing the serf girls? Maharishi and college girls? Mao philandering? One quote from the long march was that girls were proud as having a badge in having venereal disease because that meant they got it from Mao. People at the time probably knew about Tolstoy and Mao or possibly just close aids and staffers. . Were they so different in crafting persona and large movements? The English conservative journalist Malcolm Muggeridge (a true British eccentric but a first-rate broadcaster) was a big fan of Tolstoy. One time in the 1960s he gave a talk attacking sexual promiscuity. To be fair to Muggeridge he did mention in the talk that as his audience were all young they couldn't accept or comprehend what he was saying. They would only understand him when they matured. An acquaintance of his later claimed that Muggeridge said to him at the time that if he had been a student in those heady sixties days he'd have slept with all the girls he could! To me the key is that you should always be true to what you are; who you are; where you're at. And as the sexual drive is one of the strongest impulses pushing us along we have a choice: 1) go with the flow, in which case you can draw on your sex energy to motivate you in life's struggle or 2) resist the sex impulse, in which case you'll spend your life labouring *against* your own body energies, as well as having to cope with the problems life throws at you. I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?! Are there really women who walk around FF in shapeless bibs down to their ankles? Incredible. Could you post picture (you can block out the face if necessary). I would love to see this! And why do they do this? Are they old, young, crazy? Tell me more! Sexual energy is life force energy. Suppress or repress at your peril. Better to teach people how to flow with it in beneficial ways imo. On Monday, January 13, 2014 5:41 AM, dhamiltony2k5@... dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: s3; The uni-sex dress-code, which uni-sex dress-code could you favor for us? Which one? The bib-overall long has been a great equalizer. Liberating and very fitting in so many ways. -Buck s3raphita wrote: I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code. Re Tolstoy gave the right advice.: Possibly. But, as I said, it's the hypocrisy of Tolstoy that grates with me. The English conservative journalist Malcolm Muggeridge (a true British eccentric but a first-rate broadcaster) was a big fan of Tolstoy. One time in the 1960s he gave a talk attacking sexual promiscuity. To be fair to Muggeridge he did mention in the talk that as his audience were all young they couldn't accept or comprehend what he was saying. They would only understand him when they matured. An acquaintance of his later claimed that Muggeridge said to him at the time that if he had been a student in those heady sixties days he'd have slept with all the girls he could! To me the key is that you should always be true to what you are; who you are; where you're at. And as the sexual drive is one of the strongest impulses pushing us along we have a choice: 1) go with the flow, in which case you can draw on your sex energy to motivate you in life's struggle or 2) resist the sex impulse, in which case you'll spend your life labouring *against* your own body energies, as well as having to cope with the problems life throws at you. I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
The line I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code was copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't advocate any dress codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. My input was about the hypocrisy of Muggeridge and Tolstoy - both men who were enthusiastic fornicators in their youth but turned against sex in old age. Someone above asked which hypocrisy bothers you more? Tolstoy doing the serf girls?: Tolstoy was *not* being a hypocrite when he did the serf girls. He was exploiting them - a different issue entirely.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Well, this is a bit odd. The only person on FFL who has recommended uniforms for TMers is Buck, and he's most definitely a member of the organization. Did Barry miswrite? One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on this forum recommending uniforms for monks, nuns, and other members of religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying to justify rules they never followed.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Do the bibs always go with long hair down to the ankles, or just in the case of this one woman? Ann, bibs is farmer shortcut language for shapeless pale peach colored or coloured bib overalls and yes, they go down to the ankles. I think they wear them for warmth. Go figure! Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Translation: Barry's afraid Share will mess up again if she responds to questions posed to her. Share, don't let Barry tell you what to post and what not to post. Still, that's often enough. Some people you instantly recognize as friends, and others...uh...not so much. Speaking of the latter, try not to 'bite' on the renewed MGC trolling. Judging from Message View, they're trying to nitpick at you SO THAT you'll respond to them. Ignore them, and it'll become more obvious that they don't have anything to say *except* ragging on someone else.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
My admonition made perfect sense. You responded to Ann and me before Barry instructed you to ignore us. If you intend to ignore that instruction and continue to make your own decisions about what to respond to, that's good, I approve. Judy, your admonition doesn't make any sense. I've already replied to both you and Ann! On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:43 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Translation: Barry's afraid Share will mess up again if she responds to questions posed to her. Share, don't let Barry tell you what to post and what not to post. Still, that's often enough. Some people you instantly recognize as friends, and others...uh...not so much. Speaking of the latter, try not to 'bite' on the renewed MGC trolling. Judging from Message View, they're trying to nitpick at you SO THAT you'll respond to them. Ignore them, and it'll become more obvious that they don't have anything to say *except* ragging on someone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
BTW, when's the last time anyone saw Barry have as extended and wide-ranging a discussion with someone on FFL as I've been having with Bob Price? Ignore them, and it'll become more obvious that they don't have anything to say *except* ragging on someone else.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Re In public spaces, some degree of conservative uni-dress-code will enable women to break glass ceilings.: Is this dress code to be enforced by the authorities then? Sounds like Maoist China to me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Aside from the discussion of uni-sex dress-code, Asymmetric dress-code certainly are used to help generate group cohesion and employed too as fealty tests in hazing to winnow group memberships. The TM movement wore suits and ties or schoolmarm when most everybody else was in bell-bottom jean and tie-dye. Want to be involved, cut your hair. Think pictures and video presently of TM-Raja in parliament. Or that German Raja on stage in Berlin with Bevan, David Lynch and John Hagelin. It was more than a million bucks that got and keeps those Raja seated in the hall. Group organization is also always about fealty to some degree metered by some who can to make a group. Groups are always ultimately more important than the individuals they serve or groups fail. In Nature as an altruistic evolutionary skillset it is up to the individual as to whether they want to be involved in groups or do groups at all; such is Darwin-ism always at work. Some people and even some groups depending on individuals obviously are better at doing groups than others. Say what you will Maharishi has master-minded a transition of his movement after him. Asymmetric dress-code was but one aspect of securing the organization of his movement. Jai Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, -Buck in the Dome ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: --- s3raphita wrote: The line I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code was copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't advocate any dress codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. --- TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: Just in case you were wondering, I understood that, and so my rap this morning was a reply to Jason as much as it was Buck, who tried to springboard off of it with more of his gotta keep the sinners in line any way we can horseshit. I don't advocate any kind of dress code, but *especially* one that tries to make women or men look sexless. I, for one, would love to hear Jason defend that idea, and doubt that he could. I extended my rap to cover the uniforms worn by various religious groups and cults. Historically, such uniforms (special dress for priests, monks, or nuns, or even recommended dress for lay people) are about mind control more than anything else. The priesthood always needed something to *make themselves seem better or more special, and wearing certain robes that no one else was able to wear was one way to achieve that, and thus achieve the control they wanted to maintain over their flocks. Note that in most cults or religious orders, the robes/costumes worn by lower class monks are usually different and less ornate and special than those worn by people higher up in the hierarchy. (Think the ludicrous costumes worn by TMO Rajas) This is also about control. Making the monks and nuns wear costumes, period, is also an aspect of control freakdom, because the higher-ups want to remind them at all times that they are part of an org that is better and more powerful than they are, and to remind them of their vows, meaning their willingness to follow rules laid on them by other people. One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on this forum recommending uniforms for monks, nuns, and other members of religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying to justify rules they never followed. Similarly, when people like Jason mouth off about unisex clothing, I think you'll find that they're always talking about making the women look more like men. That was the point of me posting my photo of the guy from Rocky Horror wearing a corset, garter belt, stockings, and high heels. If ALL men and women dressed like that, that would be unisex. But I think we all know that's not exactly what Jason had in mind. I kinda doubt he's going to be the first in line to get his dress and high heels and wear them everywhere. :-) That is exactly the point. You wouldn't dress like a woman when you go to work. Your employer just wouldn't accept it. My point is that it perpetuates gender related prejudices and bias on a very subtle level. People can dress as they want in their private spaces (homes). In public spaces, some degree of conservative uni-dress-code will enable women to break glass ceilings. It also encourages comradeship and makes them feel that they are part of the 'family'. It's important to make that distinction between private spaces and public spaces, on this dress-code issue. Bullshit. And furthermore, bullshit written by a man who has no experience being a woman, and probably no experience breaking through ceilings in the workplace, glass or otherwise. I, on the other hand, have known a number of women who have not only disproved the glass
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Well, this is a bit odd. The only person on FFL who has recommended uniforms for TMers is Buck, and he's most definitely a member of the organization. Did Barry miswrite? It's just another hair-brained Barry theory based on a fly by the seat of your pants quick cuppa at his local coffee bar. He tends to throw out a lot of these kinds of ill-considered, random theories. They are good for a laugh once in a while though. I wonder how many people he thinks takes him seriously. One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on this forum recommending uniforms for monks, nuns, and other members of religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying to justify rules they never followed.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, I've only seen one woman in FF with hair down to her ankles but lots of women in the Dome with hair down to their waist, etc. I like that older women feel free enough to let their grey or greying hair grow long. I agree. On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:26 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Do the bibs always go with long hair down to the ankles, or just in the case of this one woman? Ann, bibs is farmer shortcut language for shapeless pale peach colored or coloured bib overalls and yes, they go down to the ankles. I think they wear them for warmth. Go figure! Buck, what about the woman who walks around FF in shapeless bibs, with her long blond hair streaming...down to her ankles?! You gonna make her cut her very feminine hair? Have everybody shave their heads?!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, your admonition doesn't make any sense. I've already replied to both you and Ann! Yes and thank you. I really didn't have a clue what bibs were other than what babies wear and the image of someone in an ankle length bib with hair to her ankles (was that too many ankles?) seemed to good to be missed. I was asking you this in all seriousness! (That Bawwy just likes to try and stir up trouble between the women.) And your description of your drive home from the movie reminded me of many miles and hours I spent on the Iowa roads looking at those long horizons. It's been a long time since I saw them. On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:43 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Translation: Barry's afraid Share will mess up again if she responds to questions posed to her. Share, don't let Barry tell you what to post and what not to post. Still, that's often enough. Some people you instantly recognize as friends, and others...uh...not so much. Speaking of the latter, try not to 'bite' on the renewed MGC trolling. Judging from Message View, they're trying to nitpick at you SO THAT you'll respond to them. Ignore them, and it'll become more obvious that they don't have anything to say *except* ragging on someone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: BTW, when's the last time anyone saw Barry have as extended and wide-ranging a discussion with someone on FFL as I've been having with Bob Price? First, Barry is not capable of having a discussion like the one you and Bob are having. Second, he doesn't have discussions. He told me a long time ago that he doesn't want to discuss things, he feels no obligation to respond to anyone. I have come to see that Bawwy uses the forum to simply deposit his droppings here whether we like/ask for them or not. He doesn't care and he doesn't consider his audience. He exists here for himself and he only posts as a service to his own needs and desires. He doesn't engage, he incites and he makes droppings. Ignore them, and it'll become more obvious that they don't have anything to say *except* ragging on someone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: --- s3raphita wrote: The line I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code was copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't advocate any dress codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. --- TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: Just in case you were wondering, I understood that, and so my rap this morning was a reply to Jason as much as it was Buck, who tried to springboard off of it with more of his gotta keep the sinners in line any way we can horseshit. I don't advocate any kind of dress code, but *especially* one that tries to make women or men look sexless. I, for one, would love to hear Jason defend that idea, and doubt that he could. I extended my rap to cover the uniforms worn by various religious groups and cults. Historically, such uniforms (special dress for priests, monks, or nuns, or even recommended dress for lay people) are about mind control more than anything else. The priesthood always needed something to *make themselves seem better or more special, and wearing certain robes that no one else was able to wear was one way to achieve that, and thus achieve the control they wanted to maintain over their flocks. Note that in most cults or religious orders, the robes/costumes worn by lower class monks are usually different and less ornate and special than those worn by people higher up in the hierarchy. (Think the ludicrous costumes worn by TMO Rajas) This is also about control. Making the monks and nuns wear costumes, period, is also an aspect of control freakdom, because the higher-ups want to remind them at all times that they are part of an org that is better and more powerful than they are, and to remind them of their vows, meaning their willingness to follow rules laid on them by other people. One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on this forum recommending uniforms for monks, nuns, and other members of religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying to justify rules they never followed. Similarly, when people like Jason mouth off about unisex clothing, I think you'll find that they're always talking about making the women look more like men. That was the point of me posting my photo of the guy from Rocky Horror wearing a corset, garter belt, stockings, and high heels. If ALL men and women dressed like that, that would be unisex. But I think we all know that's not exactly what Jason had in mind. I kinda doubt he's going to be the first in line to get his dress and high heels and wear them everywhere. :-) That is exactly the point. You wouldn't dress like a woman when you go to work. Your employer just wouldn't accept it. My point is that it perpetuates gender related prejudices and bias on a very subtle level. People can dress as they want in their private spaces (homes). In public spaces, some degree of conservative uni-dress-code will enable women to break glass ceilings. It also encourages comradeship and makes them feel that they are part of the 'family'. It's important to make that distinction between private spaces and public spaces, on this dress-code issue. Bullshit. And furthermore, bullshit written by a man who has no experience being a woman, and probably no experience breaking through ceilings in the workplace, glass or otherwise. I, on the other hand, have known a number of women who have not only disproved the glass ceiling myth, they have done so while retaining their individuality, their personalities, and their chosen mode of dress. This always says it all when it comes to Bawwy. Still laughing... For example, the woman who originally helped to get me my job at ILOG. I had known her before I moved to Paris, back in the Rama trip. From Day One, we managed to ignore many of the tensions and games that existed between the sexes in that org, and just got along. We continued to do so when I moved to Paris, and so when she suggested I interview at the company she worked for, I did. What she didn't tell me beforehand was that she not only worked at that company, she was the Vice President of Marketing for that company, so her recommendation carried some weight. But now let's look at your argument. She was pretty young (late 30s), attractive, way fit (she ran marathons and was an Olympic-level fencer), and dressed however she bloody well pleased. If she found herself in a room full of men, she was never the least bit intimidated by them, and more important, she never felt she had to emulate them in any way to be considered their equal . She was their equal because she *assumed* that she was their equal. As a result, that's how they treated her. She'd occasionally show up
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Now that's better! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jedi_spock@... wrote: Something like this might be better? --- Jason wrote: An asymmetric dress-code is bad because it is one-sided and has nothing to do with egalitarian sexuality. It promotes prejudice and bias on a very subtle level. I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code. --- TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: Jason, I think you still must be having trouble posting graphics to FFL. This arrived in my email just now, labeled jedi_spock's idea of a uni-sex dress-code. :-)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Re Tolstoy gave the right advice.: Possibly. But, as I said, it's the hypocrisy of Tolstoy that grates with me. The English conservative journalist Malcolm Muggeridge (a true British eccentric but a first-rate broadcaster) was a big fan of Tolstoy. One time in the 1960s he gave a talk attacking sexual promiscuity. To be fair to Muggeridge he did mention in the talk that as his audience were all young they couldn't accept or comprehend what he was saying. They would only understand him when they matured. An acquaintance of his later claimed that Muggeridge said to him at the time that if he had been a student in those heady sixties days he'd have slept with all the girls he could! To me the key is that you should always be true to what you are; who you are; where you're at. And as the sexual drive is one of the strongest impulses pushing us along we have a choice: 1) go with the flow, in which case you can draw on your sex energy to motivate you in life's struggle or 2) resist the sex impulse, in which case you'll spend your life labouring *against* your own body energies, as well as having to cope with the problems life throws at you. I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Meeting for Worship, 17th Century. Entering into this form of worship. “… the first that enters into the place of your meeting, be not careless, nor wander up and down either in body or mind, but innocently sit down in some place and turn in thy mind to the Light, and wait upon God [The Unified Field] simply, as if none were present but the Lord, and here thou art strong. When the next that come in, let them in simplicity and heart sit down and turn to the same Light, and wait in the Spirit, and so all the rest coming in fear of the Lord sit down in pure stillness and silence of all flesh, and wait in the Light. A few that are thus gathered by the arm of the Lord into the unity of the Spirit, this is a sweet and precious meeting in which all are met with the Lord…. Those who are brought to a pure, still waiting on God in the Spirit are come nearer to God than words are… though not a word be spoken to the hearing of the ear. In such a meeting where the presence and power of God is felt, there will be an unwillingness to part asunder, being ready to say in yourselves, it is good to be here, and this is the end of all words and writings, to bring people to the eternal living word.” -1660 -Alexander Parker, Letters of Early Friends, ed. A.R. Barclay (London; Darton and Harvey, 1841), pp. 365-66. Alexander Parker was a close companion of George Fox.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Quaker Meeting for Worship, 17th Century. Entering into this form of worship. “… the first that enters into the place of your meeting, be not careless, nor wander up and down either in body or mind, but innocently sit down in some place and turn in thy mind to the Light, and wait upon God simply, as if none were present but the Lord, and here thou art strong. When the next that come in, let them in simplicity and heart sit down and turn to the same Light, and wait in the Spirit, and so all the rest coming in fear of the Lord sit down in pure stillness and silence of all flesh, and wait in the Light. A few that are thus gathered by the arm of the Lord into the unity of the Spirit, this is a sweet and precious meeting in which all are met with the Lord…. Those who are brought to a pure, still waiting on God in the Spirit are come nearer to God than words are… though not a word be spoken to the hearing of the ear. In such a meeting where the presence and power of God is felt, there will be an unwillingness to part asunder, being ready to say in yourselves, it is good to be here, and this is the end of all words and writings, to bring people to the eternal living word.” -1660 -Alexander Parker, Letters of Early Friends, ed. A.R. Barclay (London; Darton and Harvey, 1841), pp. 365-66. Alexander Parker was a close companion of George Fox. 20th Century Quakers coming to Fairfield, Iowa in a form of spiritual direct-action peace-activism as re-enforcement joining with the large group meditations facilitated by the Transcendental Meditation(TM) movement in Fairfield held a natural affinity to Quakers. To come as re-enforcement to the enterprise of what was identified then as the spiritual Meissner Effect (ME) of group consciousness had a recognized legitimacy to spiritual Quakerism. That corporate group spirituality is a Quaker practice particularly attracted a number of old Quakers in to the TM movement early on. Initially upon coming to Fairfield, Iowa to re-enforce the aggregate numbers in meditation the old-style Quakers joined in alongside the TM meditations; as when in Rome do as the Romans do. This history in context now becomes an additional chapter in The Quakers of Iowa. See: http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm The Quakers of Iowa A history of the Quaker settlement of Iowa including the nature of the under ground rail road in 19th Century Iowa. Written by Louis T. Jones, 1914 http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm For sometime, the transcending meditation group practices of Quakers as the Society of Friends was a dominant spiritual practice in the settlement and cultivation of America and as so often has happened with Knowledge in sequence of time the now ancient silent transcendental Quaker practice fell crashing upon shoals of spiritually ignorant ideologies and the primitive Quakerism itself almost entirely foundered out of sight as a spiritual movement of the Meissner Effect [ME] of consciousness development in group meditations. The parallels of these two spiritual movements (TM and the old Society of Friends) as groups are remarkable to see and witness from inside and out. -Buck, an old Quaker and conservative meditator in the Dome No brag just fact. Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. George Fox and early Quakers long ago cognized the spiritual value of the group affect of transcending meditations. Since the 1650's that has been the corporate practice of Quakers. Seriously, -Buck in the Dome What would George Fox Say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs The Fairfield, Iowa group meditation then became the largest group to Be with as the group of transcending meditators like Quakers gathered in Iowa from the late 1970's. Quite a number of old-style Quakers like me joined on with the large group meditation in Fairfield, Iowa from the beginning then as recognized Quaker support in direct-action in the value of our form of Friends spiritual practice that the TM'ers had adapted to their own ends. What the Quakers have known all along Maharishi then had recognized as the Meissner Effect of consciousness in the corporate silent practice of inner transcending meditation like the Quaker meeting has long provided. A nice thing about the Quaker group practice as the Friends Meeting itself is that it is stripped of religious forms, of alters, brahmasthans, steeples, no stages, no ostentatious hats or robes such like some clergy and TM-Rajas and other climbers would wear above others. The nice thing about Quaker Meeting as a place is that it is
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Tolstoy could well be the greatest writer in world literature. Bearing in mind I've only read him in English translation, his novels and stories are perfection. But - and it's a very big but indeed - he suffered from old-man syndrome. When he was a young nobleman the serfs on his estates brought their young daughters to him to be enjoyed by Tolstoy as a part of his privileges. When he went on to become a student and young man-about-town he frequented prostitutes and had many mistresses. The trouble is that when he hit late middle age (and declining potency) he had a change of heart and decided that sex was the root of all evil and railed against the permissive society he lived in (and Russian society in his day was very decadent indeed). He then penned a lot of puritanical stories and Christian propaganda taking aim at the pleasures of the flesh. I really hate that. Leave the young to enjoy their pleasures and make their own mistakes say I.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Jeesus, T M I. Too Damned Much Information. If you don't have nothing nice to say don't say it at all. What kind of upbringing you have anyway? Do not let the details git in the way of a good story. . -Will Rogers or Samuel Clemens Besides, you are in the wrong subject thread with this thing on Tolstoy. Moderators, could you not do something about this confused person? Thank you moderators in advance, -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Tolstoy could well be the greatest writer in world literature. Bearing in mind I've only read him in English translation, his novels and stories are perfection. But - and it's a very big but indeed - he suffered from old-man syndrome. When he was a young nobleman the serfs on his estates brought their young daughters to him to be enjoyed by Tolstoy as a part of his privileges. When he went on to become a student and young man-about-town he frequented prostitutes and had many mistresses. The trouble is that when he hit late middle age (and declining potency) he had a change of heart and decided that sex was the root of all evil and railed against the permissive society he lived in (and Russian society in his day was very decadent indeed). He then penned a lot of puritanical stories and Christian propaganda taking aim at the pleasures of the flesh. I really hate that. Leave the young to enjoy their pleasures and make their own mistakes say I.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Re What kind of upbringing you have anyway?: I learned never to be a hypocrite. (Jesus taught the same thing, remember?) I have no time for people who take a don't do as I did, do as I say attitude.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Just ignore him. He's a poseur. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re What kind of upbringing you have anyway?: I learned never to be a hypocrite. (Jesus taught the same thing, remember?) I have no time for people who take a don't do as I did, do as I say attitude.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Just ignore him. He's a poseur. Hee, hee. You managed to come up with a name for it, I'm still searching... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re What kind of upbringing you have anyway?: I learned never to be a hypocrite. (Jesus taught the same thing, remember?) I have no time for people who take a don't do as I did, do as I say attitude.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
20th Century Quakers coming to Fairfield, Iowa in a form of spiritual direct-action peace-activism as re-enforcement joining with the large group meditations facilitated by Transcendental Meditation(TM) in Fairfield held a natural affinity to Quakers. To come as re-enforcement to the enterprise of what was identified then as the spiritual Meissner Effect (ME) of group consciousness had a recognized legitimacy to spiritual Quakerism. That corporate group spirituality is a Quaker practice that particularly attracted a number of old Quakers in to the TM movement early on. Initially upon coming to Fairfield, Iowa to re-enforce the aggregate numbers in meditation the old-style Quakers joined in alongside the TM meditations; as when in Rome do as the Romans do. This history in context now becomes an additional chapter in The Quakers of Iowa. See: http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm The Quakers of Iowa A history of the Quaker settlement of Iowa including the nature of the under ground rail road in 19th Century Iowa. Written by Louis T. Jones, 1914 http://iagenweb.org/history/qoi/QOITOC.htm For sometime, the transcending meditation group practices of Quakers as the Society of Friends was a dominant spiritual practice in the settlement and cultivation of America and as so often has happened with Knowledge in sequence of time the now ancient silent transcendental Quaker practice fell crashing upon shoals of spiritually ignorant ideologies and the primitive Quakerism itself almost entirely foundered out of sight as a spiritual movement of the Meissner Effect [ME] of consciousness development in group meditations. The parallels of these two spiritual movements (TM and the old Society of Friends) as groups are remarkable to see and witness from inside and out. -Buck, an old Quaker and conservative meditator in the Dome No brag just fact. Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. George Fox and early Quakers long ago cognized the spiritual value of the group affect of transcending meditations. Since the 1650's that has been the corporate practice of Quakers. Seriously, -Buck in the Dome What would George Fox Say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs The Fairfield, Iowa group meditation then became the largest group to Be with as the group of transcending meditators like Quakers gathered in Iowa from the late 1970's. Quite a number of old-style Quakers like me joined on with the large group meditation in Fairfield, Iowa from the beginning then as recognized Quaker support in direct-action in the value of our form of Friends spiritual practice that the TM'ers had adapted to their own ends. What the Quakers have known all along Maharishi then had recognized as the Meissner Effect of consciousness in the corporate silent practice of inner transcending meditation like the Quaker meeting has long provided. A nice thing about the Quaker group practice as the Friends Meeting itself is that it is stripped of religious forms, of alters, brahmasthans, steeples, no stages, no ostentatious hats or robes such like some clergy and TM-Rajas and other climbers would wear above others. The nice thing about Quaker Meeting as a place is that it is without the veneers of formal religion otherwise. Self run and no paid clergy. You just 'go in' sitting with others and the field effect of absolute, bliss, consciousness that the meeting of Friends creates for yourself and others. Jai George Fox, -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
No brag just fact. -Buck ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. Well, if you want to brag about something (being serious) that many people would perceive as a weakness or a failing, that's your business. Seriousness is not a virtue. - G.K. Chesterton O
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
For sometime, the transcending meditation group practices of Quakers as the Society of Friends was a dominant spiritual practice in the settlement and cultivation of America and as so often has happened with Knowledge in sequence of time the now ancient silent transcendental Quaker practice fell crashing upon shoals of spiritually ignorant ideologies and the primitive Quakerism itself almost entirely foundered out of sight as a spiritual movement of the Meissner Effect [ME] of consciousness development in group meditations. The parallels of these two spiritual movements (TM and the old Society of Friends) as groups are remarkable to see and witness from inside and out. -Buck, an old Quaker and conservative meditator in the Dome No brag just fact. Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. George Fox and early Quakers long ago cognized the spiritual value of the group affect of transcending meditations. Since the 1650's that has been the corporate practice of Quakers. Seriously, -Buck in the Dome What would George Fox Say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs The Fairfield, Iowa group meditation then became the largest group to Be with as the group of transcending meditators like Quakers gathered in Iowa from the late 1970's. Quite a number of old-style Quakers like me joined on with the large group meditation in Fairfield, Iowa from the beginning then as recognized Quaker support in direct-action in the value of our form of Friends spiritual practice that the TM'ers had adapted to their own ends. What the Quakers have known all along Maharishi then had recognized as the Meissner Effect of consciousness in the corporate silent practice of inner transcending meditation like the Quaker meeting has long provided. A nice thing about the Quaker group practice as the Friends Meeting itself is that it is stripped of religious forms, of alters, brahmasthans, steeples, no stages, no ostentatious hats or robes such like some clergy and TM-Rajas and other climbers would wear above others. The nice thing about Quaker Meeting as a place is that it is without the veneers of formal religion otherwise. Self run and no paid clergy. You just 'go in' sitting with others and the field effect of absolute, bliss, consciousness that the meeting of Friends creates for yourself and others. Jai George Fox, -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: No brag just fact. I'm pointing out that the fact you're so proud of is something that most people worth knowing got over a long time ago -- being deadly serious about something as silly as religion. Just to offer a contrast, Buck, my father was raised in a Quaker household, too. But he lived his entire life without ever saying a word about it to any of his kids. It wasn't that it didn't mean anything to him. Quite the contrary. It meant enough to him that he kept it to himself and never talked about what he thought or what he believed to anyone else. What they believed was their business, and what he believed was his business. Now *that* is doing Quakerism justice. Trying to sound more holy or more evolved or more *anything* because of some shit you do that you call religion? That's just posturing and ego-masturbation and embarrassing. Being deadly serious about it? Even more embarrassing. Just as you think what Buck does, feels and says is embarrassing so you need to take a look at how seriously you feel the need to put down those who actually believe in some greater force in their lives. Just because you gave up on any redeeming reason for why we all bother to get out of bed in the morning doesn't mean you need to poo poo others who have a larger vision than you do. You just became disillusioned and bitter at some point in your seeking - you came across too many charlatans or those you you came to lose faith in, for faith you did once possess. But now at 70 years old you've come to the realization it all means squat and you will die and stay dead - forever. Fine, but before you go, why not set yourself out a little test, you like tests, and see if you can stop feeling so agitated every time you come across someone less jaded than yourself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. Well, if you want to brag about something (being serious) that many people would perceive as a weakness or a failing, that's your business. Seriousness is not a virtue. - G.K. Chesterton
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Gee, sometimes it's really tough to figure out where Barry stands. For example, yesterday: Chatting is what equals do. Truth telling is what people who claim to be UNEQUAL, and SUPERIOR, and the knowers of truth do to the people they look down on. Today: I'm pointing out that the fact you're so proud of is something that most people worth knowing got over a long time ago -- being deadly serious about something as silly as religion. Hardly seems like Barry considers people who take their religion seriously his equals, does it? Sounds as though he looks down on them. Even sounds as though he thinks of himself as a truth teller.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Corrections below: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: No brag just fact. I'm pointing out that the fact you're so proud of is something that most people worth knowing got over a long time ago -- being deadly serious about something as silly as religion. Just to offer a contrast, Buck, my father was raised in a Quaker household, too. But he lived his entire life without ever saying a word about it to any of his kids. It wasn't that it didn't mean anything to him. Quite the contrary. It meant enough to him that he kept it to himself and never talked about what he thought or what he believed to anyone else. What they believed was their business, and what he believed was his business. Now *that* is doing Quakerism justice. Trying to sound more holy or more evolved or more *anything* because of some shit you do that you call religion? That's just posturing and ego-masturbation and embarrassing. Being deadly serious about it? Even more embarrassing. Just as you think what Buck does, feels and says is embarrassing so you need to take a look at how seriously you feel the need to put down those who actually believe in some greater force in their lives. Just because you gave up on any redeeming reason for why we all bother to get out of bed in the morning doesn't mean you need to poo poo others who have a larger vision than you do. You just became disillusioned and bitter at some point in your seeking - you came across too many charlatans or those you came to lose faith in, for faith you did once possess. But now at 70 years old you've come to the realization it all means squat and you will die and stay dead - forever. Fine, but before you go, why not set yourself out a little test, you like tests, and see if you can stop feeling so agitated every time you come across someone less jaded than yourself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. Well, if you want to brag about something (being serious) that many people would perceive as a weakness or a failing, that's your business. Seriousness is not a virtue. - G.K. Chesterton
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Brilliant and insightful, Ann, *and* funny as hell! Yes, spiritual ennui and laziness is no one's business, except the owner's. As a homey little pillow I have in the den, says, Just deal with it. :-)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
A nice thing about the Quaker group practice as the Friends Meeting itself is that it is stripped of religious forms, of alters, brahmasthans, steeples, no stages, no ostentatious hats or robes such like some clergy and TM-Rajas and other climbers would wear above others. The nice thing about Quaker Meeting as a place is that it is without the veneers of formal religion otherwise. Self run and no paid clergy. You just 'go in' sitting with others and the field effect of absolute, bliss, consciousness that the meeting of Friends creates for yourself and others. Jai George Fox, -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
The Fairfield, Iowa group meditation then became the largest group to Be with as the group of transcending meditators like Quakers gathered in Iowa from the late 1970's. Quite a number of old-style Quakers like me joined on with the large group meditation in Fairfield, Iowa from the beginning then as recognized Quaker support in direct-action in the value of our form of Friends spiritual practice that the TM'ers had adapted to their own ends. What the Quakers have known all along Maharishi then had recognized as the Meissner Effect of consciousness in the corporate silent practice of inner transcending meditation like the Quaker meeting has long provided. A nice thing about the Quaker group practice as the Friends Meeting itself is that it is stripped of religious forms, of alters, brahmasthans, steeples, no stages, no ostentatious hats or robes such like some clergy and TM-Rajas and other climbers would wear above others. The nice thing about Quaker Meeting as a place is that it is without the veneers of formal religion otherwise. Self run and no paid clergy. You just 'go in' sitting with others and the field effect of absolute, bliss, consciousness that the meeting of Friends creates for yourself and others. Jai George Fox, -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] RE: Religion that doesn#39;t take itself deadly seriously
Turqb, my people are old Quaker and I too am Quaker and by experience I take that very seriously and even deadly seriously, which is why I am in Fairfield, Iowa as an attender of the large group meditations in the Golden Domes of the Fairfield meditating community. George Fox and early Quakers long ago cognized the spiritual value of the group affect of transcending meditations. Since the 1650's that has been the corporate practice of Quakers. Seriously, -Buck in the Dome What would George Fox Say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvqbCIaAs The Fairfield, Iowa group meditation then became the largest group to Be with as the group of transcending meditators like Quakers gathered in Iowa from the late 1970's. Quite a number of old-style Quakers like me joined on with the large group meditation in Fairfield, Iowa from the beginning then as recognized Quaker support in direct-action in the value of our form of Friends spiritual practice that the TM'ers had adapted to their own ends. What the Quakers have known all along Maharishi then had recognized as the Meissner Effect of consciousness in the corporate silent practice of inner transcending meditation like the Quaker meeting has long provided. A nice thing about the Quaker group practice as the Friends Meeting itself is that it is stripped of religious forms, of alters, brahmasthans, steeples, no stages, no ostentatious hats or robes such like some clergy and TM-Rajas and other climbers would wear above others. The nice thing about Quaker Meeting as a place is that it is without the veneers of formal religion otherwise. Self run and no paid clergy. You just 'go in' sitting with others and the field effect of absolute, bliss, consciousness that the meeting of Friends creates for yourself and others. Jai George Fox, -Buck in the Dome
