Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
But but but...noozguru, I write a lot of those one liners! Oh, maybe you're suggesting I liberate myself from those also (-: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 3:58 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote: This is often the case with online discussion and why I read them using an email client like Thunderbird. A click of the button will arrange the flow of a topic to see that it has wandered off into a badminton match and not even worth reading. Do yourself a favor and set up an email client on your computer if you are so interested in FFL and liberate yourself from the one liners of the website or even Yahoo's poor mail client. On 02/06/2014 12:57 PM, Share Long wrote: Richard, sometimes there's even a deluge of posts when I'm gone for a couple of hours! No wonder some people have given up and dropped out. I end up trashing so many posts I'd like to reply to. But I'm trying to have an offline life here. Go figure (-: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:48 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/6/2014 9:43 AM, Share Long wrote: Richard, here's my important post (-: The problem with FFL is that the messages come at you so fast that you hardly have time to think for yourself, to sort it all out, much less try to figure out the deep meaning of some of the messages posted here. Anyone who wanted to find out any insider information would have to wade through thousands of messages here and on Google Groups in order to find out what happened to Jerry Jarvis or Lon P. Stacks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 7:36 PM, Bhairitu wrote: And you would see more Adventists in one day in Loma Linda than most people would see in a whole year elsewhere. Almost all the older people we know are on some kind of spiritual path of some kind these days. It's rare to meet up face-to-face with someone your own age who doesn't believe in something. But, practice is another thing. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Richard, here's my important post (-: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:41 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/5/2014 1:37 PM, Share Long wrote: I'm with Maharishi on this one: Everything is important and nothing is serious. Nobody should be taken seriously who posts to this forum, but everything they post is important, and what they don't post is also important. So, let's get serious: does anyone have anything to post that is important?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 1:37 PM, Share Long wrote: I'm with Maharishi on this one: Everything is important and nothing is serious. Nobody should be taken seriously who posts to this forum, but everything they post is important, and what they don't post is also important. So, let's get serious: does anyone have anything to post that is important?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 10:10 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken seriously.* No, seriously. You seem to be the only informant on this forum that can keep up with the fast-paced online chat room conversations on FFL! If anyone wants to try this they would be needing a smart phone, or a laptop, or a tablet, and/or a desk top computer, working out of a home office, bedroom, or at a bar or at a cafe. You need a very fast broadband connection and Wi-Fi in order to be connected 24 x 7 so as not to miss anything posted here. Good work! It's been my experience that when doing computer work you need to allot at least two hours on a project in order to make some real progress toward completion. With distractions like email coming in all the time with a tone sound; the television set on; the cell phone ringing; knocks on the door; trips to the bathroom; dogs to walk; trips to the kitchen for a snack; or out to the cafe or bar - it's a wonder anyone could keep up with a fast-paced online chat room conversation like FFL. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 12:59 PM, Share Long wrote: I'm really out of all the TMO loops. For the record though, these days I don't get to the Radiance dome all that much since I'm way down here about a mile from George Straight's ranch. And I don't visit that Hindu temple anymore out by Friday Mountain, ever since that Swami out there became convicted and became a fugitive down in Mexico. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/6/2014 9:43 AM, Share Long wrote: Richard, here's my important post (-: The problem with FFL is that the messages come at you so fast that you hardly have time to think for yourself, to sort it all out, much less try to figure out the deep meaning of some of the messages posted here. Anyone who wanted to find out any insider information would have to wade through thousands of messages here and on Google Groups in order to find out what happened to Jerry Jarvis or Lon P. Stacks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Richard, sometimes there's even a deluge of posts when I'm gone for a couple of hours! No wonder some people have given up and dropped out. I end up trashing so many posts I'd like to reply to. But I'm trying to have an offline life here. Go figure (-: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:48 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/6/2014 9:43 AM, Share Long wrote: Richard, here's my important post (-: The problem with FFL is that the messages come at you so fast that you hardly have time to think for yourself, to sort it all out, much less try to figure out the deep meaning of some of the messages posted here. Anyone who wanted to find out any insider information would have to wade through thousands of messages here and on Google Groups in order to find out what happened to Jerry Jarvis or Lon P. Stacks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
This is often the case with online discussion and why I read them using an email client like Thunderbird. A click of the button will arrange the flow of a topic to see that it has wandered off into a badminton match and not even worth reading. Do yourself a favor and set up an email client on your computer if you are so interested in FFL and liberate yourself from the one liners of the website or even Yahoo's poor mail client. On 02/06/2014 12:57 PM, Share Long wrote: Richard, sometimes there's even a deluge of posts when I'm gone for a couple of hours! No wonder some people have given up and dropped out. I end up trashing so many posts I'd like to reply to. But I'm trying to have an offline life here. Go figure (-: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:48 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/6/2014 9:43 AM, Share Long wrote: Richard, here's my important post (-: The problem with FFL is that the messages come at you so fast that you hardly have time to think for yourself, to sort it all out, much less try to figure out the deep meaning of some of the messages posted here. Anyone who wanted to find out any insider information would have to wade through thousands of messages here and on Google Groups in order to find out what happened to Jerry Jarvis or Lon P. Stacks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Om no, these are really really respectable people. Over the years I felt to contact and have frequently shared important messages posted here with some lot of academics and journalists. One often leads to another. It is always very interesting. This place is an academic's treasure trove of a place. I would not though fain to drag their names in here to be abused. That would certainly be mean and unkind to people who are just coming to lurk. I always try to protect sources here this way. Unfortunately this new yahoo neo format makes it harder for scholarly researching to locate and display an area in the FFL archive where there is a string of related posts to look at. And there has been a long period of a lot of dilution in the archive by someone. BTW, is Steen your family surname or mother's maiden name? Please respond. You are not really a professional editor are you? We are all amongst friends here but I'd like to check the authenticity of your posts here if ever I were to footnote you, could you please supply us with the last four digits of your social security number too? What are they, again? We're amongst friends here, aren't we. Oh yes, and who do you write for when you post so often here? Like, as a professional writer who do you think your audience is here? -Buck authfriend writes: I asked you: Scholars of what? From where? If they were genuine, legitimate scholars, Buck, you should be able to tell us that. If you can't, well, then we're entitled to assume you are just putting on airs and posturing to make yourself look important, as usual. Om yes, and eminent scholars. FairfieldLife and Fairfield and TM is quite topical to quite a lot of people lurking. And, who do you think reads this place? Your audience? Who do you really write for when you post? Some writers should rightfully be embarrassed. -Buck awoelflebater writes: authfriend writes: Visiting scholars?? Of what? From where? I know, right?! I mean, you don't have to be visiting in order to read the internet... Buck writes: Dear Dear FFL, A Special Thank You to everyone who added in to this thread as it developed. It was appreciated very much by several visiting scholars who came recently to FairfieldLife looking in on this particular subject thread. You were very helpful. Is always interesting to find the range of who the readers are of this place. Best of regards to all my colleagues here, -Buck in the Dome [ OM BTW, You can post an e-mail directly to Buck using the reply for this post and then push the little rectangle on the top right of the text box that comes up. Set the address there. ] PostCharismatic Posts w/Turq's original about Lenz/Rama http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 w/ Melton's Intros http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 w/ comparative comment about succession and Boards http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 Turq's comment about NPD, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 Ann's qualification of leadership and NPD http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 NPD and Charisma http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 What's a Saint anyway? http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 The Scholarly Consideration of Charisma, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 Weber's Definition of Charismatic: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 Graphing Data-pairs, Charismatics and Spiritual movements http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 In Graphing data-pairs of Saints and spiritual groups; along the path we all long-timers had experience to some degree with ranges and distribution of personality narcissism in spiritual people, from ordered to disordered and with continuum of relatively saintly
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
I think he was hoping Steen would sound more Jewish. Note his question as to whether it was my mother's maiden name. Buck, you are hilarious. You don't even know Judy's last name. And as if she is going to respond to you in all seriousness to this specious post of yours. Om to you too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Oh, and notice Buck's ridiculous paranoia: And there has been a long period of a lot of dilution in the archive by someone.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 8:44 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Unfortunately this new yahoo neo format makes it harder for scholarly researching to locate and display an area in the FFL archive where there is a string of related posts to look at. The search feature on Yahoo Neo really sucks, big time. In contrast, the search in Google Groups looks like a genius designed it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 8:44 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: BTW, is Steen your family surname or mother's maiden name? Maybe I'm wrong but, authfriend didn't say what her real name is - she is using an alias on FFL. She used to post with her name in the sig on Google Groups. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 8:44 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: You are not really a professional editor are you? Professional editors don't usually mix up their professional work and their personal activities. At least most editors don't use the company computer at work to send and receive personal messages to discussion groups. And, most informants on message groups don't advertise their business on discussion groups. And, I'd say that most professional editors don't monitor a discussion group all day while they are trying to get some work done on their computer. Go figure. It's been my experience that when doing computer work you need to allot at least two hours on a project in order to make some real progress toward completion. With distractions like email coming in all the time with a tone sound; the television set on; the cell phone ringing; knocks on the door; trips to the bathroom; dogs to walk; trips to the kitchen for a snack; or out to the cafe or bar - it's a wonder anyone could keep up with a fast-paced online chat room conversation like FFL. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken seriously. Professional editors don't usually mix up their professional work and their personal activities. At least most editors don't use the company computer at work to send and receive personal messages to discussion groups. And, most informants on message groups don't advertise their business on discussion groups. And, I'd say that most professional editors don't monitor a discussion group all day while they are trying to get some work done on their computer. Go figure. It's been my experience that when doing computer work you need to allot at least two hours on a project in order to make some real progress toward completion. With distractions like email coming in all the time with a tone sound; the television set on; the cell phone ringing; knocks on the door; trips to the bathroom; dogs to walk; trips to the kitchen for a snack; or out to the cafe or bar - it's a wonder anyone could keep up with a fast-paced online chat room conversation like FFL. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 8:44 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: and who do you write for when you post so often here? Over time a discussion group informant's purpose may change and his or her target might change over time as well. In the old days on Goggle Groups, we needed someone to stand up to the MMY critics and take up for MMY and the efficacy of TMer practice. Good work! These days there are just a few anti-TMers left to deal with. Go figure. Things are different now with Yahoo Neo - it doesn't lend itself very well to carrying on an extended discussions. However, using Google Chrome you can get the messages sent to a free GMail account where you can view messages in sequence according to date and time and according to topic. It's not complicated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken seriously. This post of his aptly demonstrates this point. Professional editors don't usually mix up their professional work and their personal activities. At least most editors don't use the company computer at work to send and receive personal messages to discussion groups. And, most informants on message groups don't advertise their business on discussion groups. And, I'd say that most professional editors don't monitor a discussion group all day while they are trying to get some work done on their computer. Go figure. It's been my experience that when doing computer work you need to allot at least two hours on a project in order to make some real progress toward completion. With distractions like email coming in all the time with a tone sound; the television set on; the cell phone ringing; knocks on the door; trips to the bathroom; dogs to walk; trips to the kitchen for a snack; or out to the cafe or bar - it's a wonder anyone could keep up with a fast-paced online chat room conversation like FFL. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 9:03 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Buck, you are hilarious. You don't even know Judy's last name. And as if she is going to respond to you in all seriousness to this specious post of yours. Om to you too. In all seriousness, how do you know her name is Judy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 8:44 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Like, as a professional writer who do you think your audience is here? Well, you'd think a professional editor would be posting to a professional editing discussion group. And, you'd think a professional writer would be posting to a professional writers group. There are always exceptions to this and sometimes you have editors trying to correct online discussions and writers posting links to other peoples writings. There's only so much you can do from a home office, a bedroom upstairs, or from a cafe or a bar using the Yahoo Neo interface. You can't submit professional editing projects for payment to a moderated discussion group and you can't write good science articles in a chat room and get paid for it. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/5/2014 8:44 AM, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Like, as a professional writer who do you think your audience is here? Well, you'd think a professional editor would be posting to a professional editing discussion group. And, you'd think a professional writer would be posting to a professional writers group. There are always exceptions to this and sometimes you have editors trying to correct online discussions and writers posting links to other peoples writings. There's only so much you can do from a home office, a bedroom upstairs, or from a cafe or a bar using the Yahoo Neo interface. You can't submit professional editing projects for payment to a moderated discussion group and you can't write good science articles in a chat room and get paid for it. Go figure. Be sure to let me know when you're serious, okay Ricky?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Great idea as an alternative. Can you get the whole FFL archive in to gmail or just current posts as they come in? Always looking for a better way to skin a cat, like searching or dropping in to the FFL archive for academic reasons. Problem in the neo search now is that you can't 'slim' those searches and move about quickly. And if you want to look at one it too readily kicks you back out to having to fill out the damned search box again. These IT people at yahoo obviously never grew up on farms doing stuff. Like, 'if it ain''t broke leave it alone and don't fix it'. Or, '..don't make more work for others to fix'. Jeesus X-mas, -Buck punditster writes: On 2/5/2014 8:44 AM Buck wrote: and who do you write for when you post so often here? Over time a discussion group informant's purpose may change and his or her target might change over time as well. In the old days on Goggle Groups, we needed someone to stand up to the MMY critics and take up for MMY and the efficacy of TMer practice. Good work! These days there are just a few anti-TMers left to deal with. Go figure. Things are different now with Yahoo Neo - it doesn't lend itself very well to carrying on an extended discussions. However, using Google Chrome you can get the messages sent to a free GMail account where you can view messages in sequence according to date and time and according to topic. It's not complicated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/3/2014 10:40 PM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Some writers should rightfully be embarrassed. Any lurkers on FFL would probably just skip over the anti-TMers and the MMY-bashers anyway. Anyone seriously interested in what TMers are doing would be reading the good stuff posted by that Buck guy and Share gal up at MUM - the long-time meditators who meditate in the Golden Domes and have the insider information about the comings-and-goings of TMers at Revelations in Fairfield. Who would want to lurk here and read some writings posted about Amsterdam cafes by a guy that has never even been to visit the TMer World Headquarters at MERU in Vlodrop? Not to mention an editor that has never been within a thousand miles to a MMY Golden Dome in her whole life? Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
There are no anti-TM'ers - we are all just realists. On Wed, 2/5/14, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2014, 5:00 PM On 2/5/2014 8:44 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: and who do you write for when you post so often here? Over time a discussion group informant's purpose may change and his or her target might change over time as well. In the old days on Goggle Groups, we needed someone to stand up to the MMY critics and take up for MMY and the efficacy of TMer practice. Good work! These days there are just a few anti-TMers left to deal with. Go figure. Things are different now with Yahoo Neo - it doesn't lend itself very well to carrying on an extended discussions. However, using Google Chrome you can get the messages sent to a free GMail account where you can view messages in sequence according to date and time and according to topic. It's not complicated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:03 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: Buck, you are hilarious. You don't even know Judy's last name. And as if she is going to respond to you in all seriousness to this specious post of yours. Om to you too. In all seriousness, how do you know her name is Judy? Remember, no one can really know what is real and what is not real. And it doesn't matter because if we think something is true then it is for us. As far as Judy's real name, would it make a difference if she was really called Marilyn Murphy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 11:39 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Can you get the whole FFL archive in to gmail or just current posts as they come in? Get a free Google Chrome browser and a free Google Mail account. Then, go into the Yahoo Group settings and have the messages sent to you by email at the Google Mail address you just set up. You can get the whole FFL archive here: http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Om my God the Unified Field!! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: Can you get the whole FFL archive in to gmail or just current posts as they come in? Get a free Google Chrome browser and a free Google Mail account. Then, go into the Yahoo Group settings and have the messages sent to you by email at the Google Mail address you just set up. You can get the whole FFL archive here: http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/ http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Does this mean that the phrase 'Nothing I post is to be taken seriously' in post #368186 should not be taken seriously? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken seriously. Professional editors don't usually mix up their professional work and their personal activities. At least most editors don't use the company computer at work to send and receive personal messages to discussion groups. And, most informants on message groups don't advertise their business on discussion groups. And, I'd say that most professional editors don't monitor a discussion group all day while they are trying to get some work done on their computer. Go figure. It's been my experience that when doing computer work you need to allot at least two hours on a project in order to make some real progress toward completion. With distractions like email coming in all the time with a tone sound; the television set on; the cell phone ringing; knocks on the door; trips to the bathroom; dogs to walk; trips to the kitchen for a snack; or out to the cafe or bar - it's a wonder anyone could keep up with a fast-paced online chat room conversation like FFL. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Xeno, I've always thought that that's exactly what Richard meant. Now I know for sure because he likes the Will Rogers sense of humor and wisdom. On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:36 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: Does this mean that the phrase 'Nothing I post is to be taken seriously' in post #368186 should not be taken seriously? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken seriously. Professional editors don't usually mix up their professional work and their personal activities. At least most editors don't use the company computer at work to send and receive personal messages to discussion groups. And, most informants on message groups don't advertise their business on discussion groups. And, I'd say that most professional editors don't monitor a discussion group all day while they are trying to get some work done on their computer. Go figure. It's been my experience that when doing computer work you need to allot at least two hours on a project in order to make some real progress toward completion. With distractions like email coming in all the time with a tone sound; the television set on; the cell phone ringing; knocks on the door; trips to the bathroom; dogs to walk; trips to the kitchen for a snack; or out to the cafe or bar - it's a wonder anyone could keep up with a fast-paced online chat room conversation like FFL. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
hey Richard, thanks for vote of confidence but I'm really out of all the TMO loops. Plus, these days I'm often meditating etc. in the town flying hall to which I can walk when there's a half of foot of new snow on the ground! Plus, I haven't been to Revs in a coon's age. Other than that, you're right (-: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:52 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/3/2014 10:40 PM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Some writers should rightfully be embarrassed. Any lurkers on FFL would probably just skip over the anti-TMers and the MMY-bashers anyway. Anyone seriously interested in what TMers are doing would be reading the good stuff posted by that Buck guy and Share gal up at MUM - the long-time meditators who meditate in the Golden Domes and have the insider information about the comings-and-goings of TMers at Revelations in Fairfield. Who would want to lurk here and read some writings posted about Amsterdam cafes by a guy that has never even been to visit the TMer World Headquarters at MERU in Vlodrop? Not to mention an editor that has never been within a thousand miles to a MMY Golden Dome in her whole life? Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Oh, you and Xeno go right ahead and take what he says seriously. That gives the rest of us a good idea of how seriously to take you (if anybody weren't already pretty sure). Xeno, I've always thought that that's exactly what Richard meant. Now I know for sure because he likes the Will Rogers sense of humor and wisdom. Does this mean that the phrase 'Nothing I post is to be taken seriously' in post #368186 should not be taken seriously? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken seriously. Professional editors don't usually mix up their professional work and their personal activities. At least most editors don't use the company computer at work to send and receive personal messages to discussion groups. And, most informants on message groups don't advertise their business on discussion groups. And, I'd say that most professional editors don't monitor a discussion group all day while they are trying to get some work done on their computer. Go figure. It's been my experience that when doing computer work you need to allot at least two hours on a project in order to make some real progress toward completion. With distractions like email coming in all the time with a tone sound; the television set on; the cell phone ringing; knocks on the door; trips to the bathroom; dogs to walk; trips to the kitchen for a snack; or out to the cafe or bar - it's a wonder anyone could keep up with a fast-paced online chat room conversation like FFL. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
I'm with Maharishi on this one: Everything is important and nothing is serious. On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:25 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Oh, you and Xeno go right ahead and take what he says seriously. That gives the rest of us a good idea of how seriously to take you (if anybody weren't already pretty sure). Xeno, I've always thought that that's exactly what Richard meant. Now I know for sure because he likes the Will Rogers sense of humor and wisdom. Does this mean that the phrase 'Nothing I post is to be taken seriously' in post #368186 should not be taken seriously? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken seriously. Professional editors don't usually mix up their professional work and their personal activities. At least most editors don't use the company computer at work to send and receive personal messages to discussion groups. And, most informants on message groups don't advertise their business on discussion groups. And, I'd say that most professional editors don't monitor a discussion group all day while they are trying to get some work done on their computer. Go figure. It's been my experience that when doing computer work you need to allot at least two hours on a project in order to make some real progress toward completion. With distractions like email coming in all the time with a tone sound; the television set on; the cell phone ringing; knocks on the door; trips to the bathroom; dogs to walk; trips to the kitchen for a snack; or out to the cafe or bar - it's a wonder anyone could keep up with a fast-paced online chat room conversation like FFL. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Perfect. Thank you so much for making my point, Share. I'm with Maharishi on this one: Everything is important and nothing is serious. On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:25 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, you and Xeno go right ahead and take what he says seriously. That gives the rest of us a good idea of how seriously to take you (if anybody weren't already pretty sure). Xeno, I've always thought that that's exactly what Richard meant. Now I know for sure because he likes the Will Rogers sense of humor and wisdom. Does this mean that the phrase 'Nothing I post is to be taken seriously' in post #368186 should not be taken seriously? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken seriously. Professional editors don't usually mix up their professional work and their personal activities. At least most editors don't use the company computer at work to send and receive personal messages to discussion groups. And, most informants on message groups don't advertise their business on discussion groups. And, I'd say that most professional editors don't monitor a discussion group all day while they are trying to get some work done on their computer. Go figure. It's been my experience that when doing computer work you need to allot at least two hours on a project in order to make some real progress toward completion. With distractions like email coming in all the time with a tone sound; the television set on; the cell phone ringing; knocks on the door; trips to the bathroom; dogs to walk; trips to the kitchen for a snack; or out to the cafe or bar - it's a wonder anyone could keep up with a fast-paced online chat room conversation like FFL. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 12:36 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: Does this mean that the phrase 'Nothing I post is to be taken seriously' in post #368186 should not be taken seriously? Seriously, it looks like someone is monitoring my messages to this group from a home office somewhere - every ten minutes, judging from the response time. How long does it take for a message to travel on the internet - a few nanoseconds? So, I wonder what took the corrector so long to post a reply. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 11:06 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: *As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken seriously.* *This post of his aptly demonstrates this point.* My point was that for lurkers it's much more interesting to read what the TMers in Fairfield are doing and thinking. That's where the insider information is coming from. Nobody cares what the others informants have to say if they're not involved in any TMer activities. If there is going to be any insider information posted here about the TMO it will probably be coded in cypher for TMers only.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
On 2/5/2014 12:59 PM, Share Long wrote: thanks for vote of confidence but I'm really out of all the TMO loops. You are more in the loop that most informants posting here - you probably see more TMers in a day than some people see in a whole year. According to my sources, most of the MUM students are on Facebook. There is at least one TM Governor lurking on this forum and two Rajas that I know of. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
And you would see more Adventists in one day in Loma Linda than most people would see in a whole year elsewhere. What's your point? There is a good chance that a certain percentage of baby boomers you meet on the street may have tried TM back in the 60s or 70s. The vast majority practiced for awhile and either quit or moved on and some may still practice occasionally. But the same can be said for other paths too. As for Hollywood you could also find that a number pop stars and actors tried TM around the time the Beatles got involved because it was all the rage back then and next came EST and next came Get the point? Go figure. On 02/05/2014 04:48 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: On 2/5/2014 12:59 PM, Share Long wrote: thanks for vote of confidence but I'm really out of all the TMO loops. You are more in the loop that most informants posting here - you probably see more TMers in a day than some people see in a whole year. According to my sources, most of the MUM students are on Facebook. There is at least one TM Governor lurking on this forum and two Rajas that I know of. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/5/2014 12:59 PM, Share Long wrote: thanks for vote of confidence but I'm really out of all the TMO loops. You are more in the loop that most informants posting here - you probably see more TMers in a day than some people see in a whole year. According to my sources, most of the MUM students are on Facebook. There is at least one TM Governor lurking on this forum and two Rajas that I know of. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
I asked you: Scholars of what? From where? If they were genuine, legitimate scholars, Buck, you should be able to tell us that. If you can't, well, then we're entitled to assume you are just putting on airs and posturing to make yourself look important, as usual. Om yes, and eminent scholars. FairfieldLife and Fairfield and TM is quite topical to quite a lot of people lurking. And, who do you think reads this place? Your audience? Who do you really write for when you post? Some writers should rightfully be embarrassed. -Buck awoelflebater writes: authfriend writes: Visiting scholars?? Of what? From where? I know, right?! I mean, you don't have to be visiting in order to read the internet... Dear Dear FFL, A Special Thank You to everyone who added in to this thread as it developed. It was appreciated very much by several visiting scholars who came recently to FairfieldLife looking in on this particular subject thread. You were very helpful. Is always interesting to find the range of who the readers are of this place. Best of regards to all my colleagues here, -Buck in the Dome [ OM BTW, You can post an e-mail directly to Buck using the reply for this post and then push the little rectangle on the top right of the text box that comes up. Set the address there. ] PostCharismatic Posts w/Turq's original about Lenz/Rama http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 w/ Melton's Intros http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 w/ comparative comment about succession and Boards http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 Turq's comment about NPD, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 Ann's qualification of leadership and NPD http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 NPD and Charisma http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 What's a Saint anyway? http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 The Scholarly Consideration of Charisma, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 Weber's Definition of Charismatic: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 Graphing Data-pairs, Charismatics and Spiritual movements http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 In Graphing data-pairs of Saints and spiritual groups; along the path we all long-timers had experience to some degree with ranges and distribution of personality narcissism in spiritual people, from ordered to disordered and with continuum of relatively saintly charismatic affect and the less than saintly spiritual behaviors. In looking at spiritual leaders or looking at spiritual groups historically I tend to draw back and place them on Cartesian paired-data graphs working two types of relative scales to get a fix on the spirituality. I find this works good as framework for placing any group or saint relatively. Weber's definition of Charismatic can be one scale. There also comes a calculus that can be seen through time with charismatics or their groups (life-cycle) for instance if you plot transformative spiritual affective-ness on one axis against the altruistic evolution of group organizational development on another. Graphing like thus one can parse variously using data-pairs of scale to sort them out relatively. For instance, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc Awoelflebater writes: How many times do I have to tell you Bucko, there are NO SUCH THINGS AS SAINTS. Get over it. Go stare your horse in the face, look in his eyes and tell me this is not the most sublime, the deepest thing you will ever see.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Dear Dear FFL, A Special Thank You to everyone who added in to this thread as it developed. It was appreciated very much by several visiting scholars who came recently to FairfieldLife looking in on this particular subject thread. You were very helpful. Is always interesting to find the range of who the readers are of this place. Best of regards to all my colleagues here, -Buck in the Dome [ OM BTW, You can post an e-mail directly to Buck using the reply for this post and then push the little rectangle on the top right of the text box that comes up. Set the address there. ] PostCharismatic Posts w/Turq's original about Lenz/Rama http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 w/ Melton's Intros http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 w/ comparative comment about succession and Boards http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 Turq's comment about NPD, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 Ann's qualification of leadership and NPD http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 NPD and Charisma http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 What's a Saint anyway? http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 The Scholarly Consideration of Charisma, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 Weber's Definition of Charismatic: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 Graphing Data-pairs, Charismatics and Spiritual movements http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 In Graphing data-pairs of Saints and spiritual groups; along the path we all long-timers had experience to some degree with ranges and distribution of personality narcissism in spiritual people, from ordered to disordered and with continuum of relatively saintly charismatic affect and the less than saintly spiritual behaviors. In looking at spiritual leaders or looking at spiritual groups historically I tend to draw back and place them on Cartesian paired-data graphs working two types of relative scales to get a fix on the spirituality. I find this works good as framework for placing any group or saint relatively. Weber's definition of Charismatic can be one scale. There also comes a calculus that can be seen through time with charismatics or their groups (life-cycle) for instance if you plot transformative spiritual affective-ness on one axis against the altruistic evolution of group organizational development on another. Graphing like thus one can parse variously using data-pairs of scale to sort them out relatively. For instance, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc Awoelflebater writes: How many times do I have to tell you Bucko, there are NO SUCH THINGS AS SAINTS. Get over it. Go stare your horse in the face, look in his eyes and tell me this is not the most sublime, the deepest thing you will ever see. Collecting the ashy crap emanating from some fake's toes or feet or whatever it was you said you saw is downright creepy. Get a grip. For a farmer, you need to get grounded again. I think you've flown off in the cornfields to somewhere imaginary and strange. Weber's definition of charismatic is good for purpose of discussion generally and also for extending out to include the uncomfortable person who is skeptically asking in unknowing disbelief, “what exactly's a saint?” I feel that granting the spiritual consideration of charisma makes the whole consideration of spirituality and charismatic leadership much more interesting and also makes for a more interesting sense of history too if people will
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Visiting scholars?? Of what? From where? Dear Dear FFL, A Special Thank You to everyone who added in to this thread as it developed. It was appreciated very much by several visiting scholars who came recently to FairfieldLife looking in on this particular subject thread. You were very helpful. Is always interesting to find the range of who the readers are of this place. Best of regards to all my colleagues here, -Buck in the Dome [ OM BTW, You can post an e-mail directly to Buck using the reply for this post and then push the little rectangle on the top right of the text box that comes up. Set the address there. ] PostCharismatic Posts w/Turq's original about Lenz/Rama http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 w/ Melton's Intros http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 w/ comparative comment about succession and Boards http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 Turq's comment about NPD, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 Ann's qualification of leadership and NPD http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 NPD and Charisma http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 What's a Saint anyway? http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 The Scholarly Consideration of Charisma, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 Weber's Definition of Charismatic: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 Graphing Data-pairs, Charismatics and Spiritual movements http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 In Graphing data-pairs of Saints and spiritual groups; along the path we all long-timers had experience to some degree with ranges and distribution of personality narcissism in spiritual people, from ordered to disordered and with continuum of relatively saintly charismatic affect and the less than saintly spiritual behaviors. In looking at spiritual leaders or looking at spiritual groups historically I tend to draw back and place them on Cartesian paired-data graphs working two types of relative scales to get a fix on the spirituality. I find this works good as framework for placing any group or saint relatively. Weber's definition of Charismatic can be one scale. There also comes a calculus that can be seen through time with charismatics or their groups (life-cycle) for instance if you plot transformative spiritual affective-ness on one axis against the altruistic evolution of group organizational development on another. Graphing like thus one can parse variously using data-pairs of scale to sort them out relatively. For instance, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc Awoelflebater writes: How many times do I have to tell you Bucko, there are NO SUCH THINGS AS SAINTS. Get over it. Go stare your horse in the face, look in his eyes and tell me this is not the most sublime, the deepest thing you will ever see. Collecting the ashy crap emanating from some fake's toes or feet or whatever it was you said you saw is downright creepy. Get a grip. For a farmer, you need to get grounded again. I think you've flown off in the cornfields to somewhere imaginary and strange. Weber's definition of charismatic is good for purpose of discussion generally and also for extending out to include the uncomfortable person who is skeptically asking in unknowing disbelief, “what exactly's a saint?” I feel that granting the spiritual consideration of charisma makes the whole consideration of spirituality and charismatic leadership much more interesting and also makes for a more interesting
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Visiting scholars?? Of what? From where? I know, right?! I mean, you don't have to be visiting in order to read the internet... Dear Dear FFL, A Special Thank You to everyone who added in to this thread as it developed. It was appreciated very much by several visiting scholars who came recently to FairfieldLife looking in on this particular subject thread. You were very helpful. Is always interesting to find the range of who the readers are of this place. Best of regards to all my colleagues here, -Buck in the Dome [ OM BTW, You can post an e-mail directly to Buck using the reply for this post and then push the little rectangle on the top right of the text box that comes up. Set the address there. ] PostCharismatic Posts w/Turq's original about Lenz/Rama http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 w/ Melton's Intros http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 w/ comparative comment about succession and Boards http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 Turq's comment about NPD, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 Ann's qualification of leadership and NPD http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 NPD and Charisma http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 What's a Saint anyway? http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 The Scholarly Consideration of Charisma, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 Weber's Definition of Charismatic: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 Graphing Data-pairs, Charismatics and Spiritual movements http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 In Graphing data-pairs of Saints and spiritual groups; along the path we all long-timers had experience to some degree with ranges and distribution of personality narcissism in spiritual people, from ordered to disordered and with continuum of relatively saintly charismatic affect and the less than saintly spiritual behaviors. In looking at spiritual leaders or looking at spiritual groups historically I tend to draw back and place them on Cartesian paired-data graphs working two types of relative scales to get a fix on the spirituality. I find this works good as framework for placing any group or saint relatively. Weber's definition of Charismatic can be one scale. There also comes a calculus that can be seen through time with charismatics or their groups (life-cycle) for instance if you plot transformative spiritual affective-ness on one axis against the altruistic evolution of group organizational development on another. Graphing like thus one can parse variously using data-pairs of scale to sort them out relatively. For instance, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc Awoelflebater writes: How many times do I have to tell you Bucko, there are NO SUCH THINGS AS SAINTS. Get over it. Go stare your horse in the face, look in his eyes and tell me this is not the most sublime, the deepest thing you will ever see. Collecting the ashy crap emanating from some fake's toes or feet or whatever it was you said you saw is downright creepy. Get a grip. For a farmer, you need to get grounded again. I think you've flown off in the cornfields to somewhere imaginary and strange. Weber's definition of charismatic is good for purpose of discussion generally and also for extending out to include the uncomfortable person who is skeptically asking in unknowing disbelief, “what exactly's a saint?” I feel that granting the spiritual
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Om yes, and eminent scholars. FairfieldLife and Fairfield and TM is quite topical to quite a lot of people lurking. And, who do you think reads this place? Your audience? Who do you really write for when you post? Some writers should rightfully be embarrassed. -Buck awoelflebater writes: authfriend writes: Visiting scholars?? Of what? From where? I know, right?! I mean, you don't have to be visiting in order to read the internet... Dear Dear FFL, A Special Thank You to everyone who added in to this thread as it developed. It was appreciated very much by several visiting scholars who came recently to FairfieldLife looking in on this particular subject thread. You were very helpful. Is always interesting to find the range of who the readers are of this place. Best of regards to all my colleagues here, -Buck in the Dome [ OM BTW, You can post an e-mail directly to Buck using the reply for this post and then push the little rectangle on the top right of the text box that comes up. Set the address there. ] PostCharismatic Posts w/Turq's original about Lenz/Rama http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370519 w/ Melton's Intros http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 w/ comparative comment about succession and Boards http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370575 Turq's comment about NPD, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370589 Ann's qualification of leadership and NPD http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370600 NPD and Charisma http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370617 What's a Saint anyway? http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370786 The Scholarly Consideration of Charisma, http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370672 Weber's Definition of Charismatic: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370565 Graphing Data-pairs, Charismatics and Spiritual movements http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370787 In Graphing data-pairs of Saints and spiritual groups; along the path we all long-timers had experience to some degree with ranges and distribution of personality narcissism in spiritual people, from ordered to disordered and with continuum of relatively saintly charismatic affect and the less than saintly spiritual behaviors. In looking at spiritual leaders or looking at spiritual groups historically I tend to draw back and place them on Cartesian paired-data graphs working two types of relative scales to get a fix on the spirituality. I find this works good as framework for placing any group or saint relatively. Weber's definition of Charismatic can be one scale. There also comes a calculus that can be seen through time with charismatics or their groups (life-cycle) for instance if you plot transformative spiritual affective-ness on one axis against the altruistic evolution of group organizational development on another. Graphing like thus one can parse variously using data-pairs of scale to sort them out relatively. For instance, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc Awoelflebater writes: How many times do I have to tell you Bucko, there are NO SUCH THINGS AS SAINTS. Get over it. Go stare your horse in the face, look in his eyes and tell me this is not the most sublime, the deepest thing you will ever see. Collecting the ashy crap emanating from some fake's toes or feet or whatever it was you said you saw is downright creepy. Get a grip. For a farmer, you need to get grounded again. I think you've flown off in the cornfields to somewhere imaginary and strange.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Awoelflebater writes: How many times do I have to tell you Bucko, there are NO SUCH THINGS AS SAINTS. Get over it. Go stare your horse in the face, look in his eyes and tell me this is not the most sublime, the deepest thing you will ever see. Collecting the ashy crap emanating from some fake's toes or feet or whatever it was you said you saw is downright creepy. Get a grip. For a farmer, you need to get grounded again. I think you've flown off in the cornfields to somewhere imaginary and strange. http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/370722 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Weber's definition of charismatic is good for purpose of discussion generally and also for extending out to include the uncomfortable person who is skeptically asking in unknowing disbelief, “what exactly's a saint?” I feel that granting the spiritual consideration of charisma makes the whole consideration of spirituality and charismatic leadership much more interesting and also makes for a more interesting sense of history too if people will grant for sake of discussion that charismatic saints do happen. Weber's definition then begins to allow for further scholarly consideration of spirituality and of even the saintly, if people will grant it rather than just being in a position of contending and denying it. -Buck Turq, separating the NP-Disordered as a consideration is just a scale with a range and distribution of consideration around the real spiritual charismatic. The Dis-ordered may just indicate bad nurture of upbringing or some bad nature of dis-ease of genetic material otherwise and both may be independent of a charismatic life of saintly-hood as a trans-formative affective energy field in time. Bad nurture or bad nature may travel with charisma evidently as part of the story. That is only human? The OEM of the human form does come with ego included as part of the factory package on earth. That evidently can give us all a lot to talk about and I appreciate your journalistic pursuit of the subject here. -Buck in the Dome Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. 1 Turq writes: I would suggest -- and in fact have, many times -- that a synonym for charisma in many cases is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is a weakness in many people and their basic *lack* of self confidence and self awareness that makes them easy prey for those who have a surfeit of it. They encounter someone who is so taken with themselves that they can literally think of nothing and no one else and they project a bunch of admirable qualities onto a disorder that is largely devoid of them. Think about the arrival on FFL of someone who is as classic an example of NPD as has ever existed. Some people saw the endless But enough talking about me...let's talk about me drivel as what it was and lost interest, and some looked at the same drivel and somehow projected greatness onto it. To this day, the most dismaying thing about my entire experience at FFL has been the fact that many people here were completely *unable* to recognize two classic psychopaths -- Ravi and Robin -- when they encountered them. Instead they admired them, became their groupies, and in one case actually created a small cult following around them. That is worrisome, especially in a group of people who claim to be sophisticated spiritual seekers who've been on the path for 20-30 years. To have spent that much time theoretically studying the psychology of enlightenment without being able to tell it from the psychology of psychopathology is shocking. O
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
In Graphing data-pairs of Saints and spiritual groups; along the path we all long-timers had experience to some degree with ranges and distribution of personality narcissism in spiritual people, from ordered to disordered and with continuum of relatively saintly charismatic affect and the less than saintly spiritual behaviors. In looking at spiritual leaders or looking at spiritual groups historically I tend to draw back and place them on Cartesian paired-data graphs working two types of relative scales to get a fix on the spirituality. I find this works good as framework for placing any group or saint relatively. Weber's definition of Charismatic can be one scale. There also comes a calculus that can be seen through time with charismatics or their groups (life-cycle) for instance if you plot transformative spiritual affective-ness on one axis against the altruistic evolution of group organizational development on another. Graphing like thus one can parse variously using data-pairs of scale to sort them out relatively. For instance, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc Awoelflebater writes: How many times do I have to tell you Bucko, there are NO SUCH THINGS AS SAINTS. Get over it. Go stare your horse in the face, look in his eyes and tell me this is not the most sublime, the deepest thing you will ever see. Collecting the ashy crap emanating from some fake's toes or feet or whatever it was you said you saw is downright creepy. Get a grip. For a farmer, you need to get grounded again. I think you've flown off in the cornfields to somewhere imaginary and strange. Weber's definition of charismatic is good for purpose of discussion generally and also for extending out to include the uncomfortable person who is skeptically asking in unknowing disbelief, “what exactly's a saint?” I feel that granting the spiritual consideration of charisma makes the whole consideration of spirituality and charismatic leadership much more interesting and also makes for a more interesting sense of history too if people will grant for sake of discussion that charismatic saints do happen. Weber's definition then begins to allow for further scholarly consideration of spirituality and of even the saintly, if people will grant it rather than just being in a position of contending and denying it. -Buck Turq, separating the NP-Disordered as a consideration is just a scale with a range and distribution of consideration around the real spiritual charismatic. The Dis-ordered may just indicate bad nurture of upbringing or some bad nature of dis-ease of genetic material otherwise and both may be independent of a charismatic life of saintly-hood as a trans-formative affective energy field in time. Bad nurture or bad nature may travel with charisma evidently as part of the story. That is only human? The OEM of the human form does come with ego included as part of the factory package on earth. That evidently can give us all a lot to talk about and I appreciate your journalistic pursuit of the subject here. -Buck in the Dome Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. 1 Turq writes: I would suggest -- and in fact have, many times -- that a synonym for charisma in many cases is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is a weakness in many people and their basic *lack* of self confidence and self awareness that makes them easy prey for those who have a surfeit of it. They encounter someone who is so taken with themselves that they can literally think of nothing and no one else and they project a bunch of admirable qualities onto a disorder that is largely devoid of them. Think about the arrival on FFL of someone who is as classic an example of NPD as has ever existed. Some people saw the endless But enough talking about me...let's talk about me drivel as what it was and lost interest, and some looked at the same drivel and somehow projected greatness onto it. To this day, the most dismaying thing about my entire experience at FFL has been the fact that many people here were completely *unable* to recognize two classic psychopaths -- Ravi and Robin -- when they encountered them. Instead they admired them, became their groupies, and in
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: In Graphing data-pairs of Saints and spiritual groups; along the path we all long-timers had experience to some degree with ranges and distribution of personality narcissism in spiritual people, from ordered to disordered and with continuum of relatively saintly charismatic affect and the less than saintly spiritual behaviors. In looking at spiritual leaders or looking at spiritual groups historically I tend to draw back and place them on Cartesian paired-data graphs working two types of relative scales to get a fix on the spirituality. I find this works good as framework for placing any group or saint relatively. Weber's definition of Charismatic can be one scale. There also comes a calculus that can be seen through time with charismatics or their groups (life-cycle) for instance if you plot transformative spiritual affective-ness on one axis against the altruistic evolution of group organizational development on another. Graphing like thus one can parse variously using data-pairs of scale to sort them out relatively. For instance, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc Awoelflebater writes: How many times do I have to tell you Bucko, there are NO SUCH THINGS AS SAINTS. Get over it. Go stare your horse in the face, look in his eyes and tell me this is not the most sublime, the deepest thing you will ever see. Collecting the ashy crap emanating from some fake's toes or feet or whatever it was you said you saw is downright creepy. Get a grip. For a farmer, you need to get grounded again. I think you've flown off in the cornfields to somewhere imaginary and strange. Weber's definition of charismatic is good for purpose of discussion generally and also for extending out to include the uncomfortable person who is skeptically asking in unknowing disbelief, “what exactly's a saint?” I feel that granting the spiritual consideration of charisma makes the whole consideration of spirituality and charismatic leadership much more interesting and also makes for a more interesting sense of history too if people will grant for sake of discussion that charismatic saints do happen. Weber's definition then begins to allow for further scholarly consideration of spirituality and of even the saintly, if people will grant it rather than just being in a position of contending and denying it. -Buck Thanks Buck but did you go out and look into your horse's eyes today? If you did, can you tell me what a saint can relay to you that those eyes can't? Did you feel anything? Learn anything? Did you realize that saintliness, depth and wisdom is everywhere to be found in the things around you? Did you know that the powers that be can't kick you out of the Dome for transcending into your horse's eyes? Sounds like a win win to me. I am not uncomfortable with the possibility that what you think of as saints exist, indeed, I surely hope they do. I believe all things are possible, including all manner of beings. Unknowing disbelief does not describe the nature of my incredulity about the existence of saints. I just don't think they are what you and others think they are. I think they are way more than that. Turq, separating the NP-Disordered as a consideration is just a scale with a range and distribution of consideration around the real spiritual charismatic. The Dis-ordered may just indicate bad nurture of upbringing or some bad nature of dis-ease of genetic material otherwise and both may be independent of a charismatic life of saintly-hood as a trans-formative affective energy field in time. Bad nurture or bad nature may travel with charisma evidently as part of the story. That is only human? The OEM of the human form does come with ego included as part of the factory package on earth. That evidently can give us all a lot to talk about and I appreciate your journalistic pursuit of the subject here. -Buck in the Dome Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. 1 Turq writes: I would suggest -- and in fact have, many times -- that a synonym for charisma in many cases is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is a weakness in many people and their basic *lack*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
all the saints I ever communed with were cats, and they all loved to kill mice On Wed, 1/22/14, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements. To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2014, 2:25 AM ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: In Graphing data-pairs of Saints and spiritual groups; along the path we all long-timers had experience to some degree with ranges and distribution of personality narcissism in spiritual people, from ordered to disordered and with continuum of relatively saintly charismatic affect and the less than saintly spiritual behaviors. In looking at spiritual leaders or looking at spiritual groups historically I tend to draw back and place them on Cartesian paired-data graphs working two types of relative scales to get a fix on the spirituality. I find this works good as framework for placing any group or saint relatively. Weber's definition of Charismatic can be one scale. There also comes a calculus that can be seen through time with charismatics or their groups (life-cycle) for instance if you plot transformative spiritual affective-ness on one axis against the altruistic evolution of group organizational development on another. Graphing like thus one can parse variously using data-pairs of scale to sort them out relatively. For instance, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/communal-studies-forum/BVT5Okg_nfc Awoelflebater writes: How many times do I have to tell you Bucko, there are NO SUCH THINGS AS SAINTS. Get over it. Go stare your horse in the face, look in his eyes and tell me this is not the most sublime, the deepest thing you will ever see. Collecting the ashy crap emanating from some fake's toes or feet or whatever it was you said you saw is downright creepy. Get a grip. For a farmer, you need to get grounded again. I think you've flown off in the cornfields to somewhere imaginary and strange. Weber's definition of charismatic is good for purpose of discussion generally and also for extending out to include the uncomfortable person who is skeptically asking in unknowing disbelief, “what exactly's a saint?” I feel that granting the spiritual consideration of charisma makes the whole consideration of spirituality and charismatic leadership much more interesting and also makes for a more interesting sense of history too if people will grant for sake of discussion that charismatic saints do happen. Weber's definition then begins to allow for further scholarly consideration of spirituality and of even the saintly, if people will grant it rather than just being in a position of contending and denying it. -Buck Thanks Buck but did you go out and look into your horse's eyes today? If you did, can you tell me what a saint can relay to you that those eyes can't? Did you feel anything? Learn anything? Did you realize that saintliness, depth and wisdom is everywhere to be found in the things around you? Did you know that the powers that be can't kick you out of the Dome for transcending into your horse's eyes? Sounds like a win win to me. I am not uncomfortable with the possibility that what you think of as saints exist, indeed, I surely hope they do. I believe all things are possible, including all manner of beings. Unknowing disbelief does not describe the nature of my incredulity about the existence of saints. I just don't think they are what you and others think they are. I think they are way more than that. Turq, separating the NP-Disordered as a consideration is just a scale with a range and distribution of consideration around the real spiritual charismatic. The Dis-ordered may just indicate bad nurture of upbringing or some bad nature of dis-ease of genetic material otherwise and both may be independent of a charismatic life of saintly-hood as a trans-formative affective energy field in time. Bad nurture or bad nature may travel with charisma evidently as part of the story. That is only human? The OEM of the human form does come with ego included as part of the factory package on earth. That evidently can give us all a lot to talk about and I appreciate your journalistic pursuit of the subject here. -Buck in the Dome Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Weber's definition of charismatic is good for purpose of discussion generally and also for extending out to include the uncomfortable person who is skeptically asking in unknowing disbelief, “what exactly's a saint?” I feel that granting the spiritual consideration of charisma makes the whole consideration of spirituality and charismatic leadership much more interesting and also makes for a more interesting sense of history too if people will grant for sake of discussion that charismatic saints do happen. Weber's definition then begins to allow for further scholarly consideration of spirituality and of even the saintly, if people will grant it rather than just being in a position of contending and denying it. -Buck Turq, separating the NP-Disordered as a consideration is just a scale with a range and distribution of consideration around the real spiritual charismatic. The Dis-ordered may just indicate bad nurture of upbringing or some bad nature of dis-ease of genetic material otherwise and both may be independent of a charismatic life of saintly-hood as a trans-formative affective energy field in time. Bad nurture or bad nature may travel with charisma evidently as part of the story. That is only human? The OEM of the human form does come with ego included as part of the factory package on earth. That evidently can give us all a lot to talk about and I appreciate your journalistic pursuit of the subject here. -Buck in the Dome Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. 1 Turq writes: I would suggest -- and in fact have, many times -- that a synonym for charisma in many cases is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is a weakness in many people and their basic *lack* of self confidence and self awareness that makes them easy prey for those who have a surfeit of it. They encounter someone who is so taken with themselves that they can literally think of nothing and no one else and they project a bunch of admirable qualities onto a disorder that is largely devoid of them. Think about the arrival on FFL of someone who is as classic an example of NPD as has ever existed. Some people saw the endless But enough talking about me...let's talk about me drivel as what it was and lost interest, and some looked at the same drivel and somehow projected greatness onto it. To this day, the most dismaying thing about my entire experience at FFL has been the fact that many people here were completely *unable* to recognize two classic psychopaths -- Ravi and Robin -- when they encountered them. Instead they admired them, became their groupies, and in one case actually created a small cult following around them. That is worrisome, especially in a group of people who claim to be sophisticated spiritual seekers who've been on the path for 20-30 years. To have spent that much time theoretically studying the psychology of enlightenment without being able to tell it from the psychology of psychopathology is shocking. O
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. 1 I would suggest -- and in fact have, many times -- that a synonym for charisma in many cases is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is a weakness in many people and their basic *lack* of self confidence and self awareness that makes them easy prey for those who have a surfeit of it. They encounter someone who is so taken with themselves that they can literally think of nothing and no one else and they project a bunch of admirable qualities onto a disorder that is largely devoid of them. Think about the arrival on FFL of someone who is as classic an example of NPD as has ever existed. Some people saw the endless But enough talking about me...let's talk about me drivel as what it was and lost interest, and some looked at the same drivel and somehow projected greatness onto it. To this day, the most dismaying thing about my entire experience at FFL has been the fact that many people here were completely *unable* to recognize two classic psychopaths -- Ravi and Robin -- when they encountered them. Instead they admired them, became their groupies, and in one case actually created a small cult following around them. That is worrisome, especially in a group of people who claim to be sophisticated spiritual seekers who've been on the path for 20-30 years. To have spent that much time theoretically studying the psychology of enlightenment without being able to tell it from the psychology of psychopathology is shocking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. 1 I would suggest -- and in fact have, many times -- that a synonym for charisma in many cases is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is a weakness in many people and their basic *lack* of self confidence and self awareness that makes them easy prey for those who have a surfeit of it. They encounter someone who is so taken with themselves that they can literally think of nothing and no one else and they project a bunch of admirable qualities onto a disorder that is largely devoid of them. I find this such a limited view and one that perhaps implies you are threatened by smart, confident, strong people and therefore find a way of analyzing them that makes these characteristics appear menacing and negative. Some people on this planet are actually possessed of leadership qualities, who are stronger and more interesting and arresting than others. These people are not necessarily those whose world is focused around themselves any more than anyone else. These can be human beings who are, seemingly, naturally self-confident, look as if they were born with an ease and strength that many others do not possess. The fact that you describe these kinds of charismatic individuals as those who are so taken with themselves that they can think of nothing and no one else is abysmally short sighted, Barry. Think about the arrival on FFL of someone who is as classic an example of NPD as has ever existed. Some people saw the endless But enough talking about me...let's talk about me drivel as what it was and lost interest, and some looked at the same drivel and somehow projected greatness onto it. Now you're sounding resentful and mistaken. No one here thinks of anyone else on this forum as great in the way that you mean it/imply here. To this day, the most dismaying thing about my entire experience at FFL has been the fact that many people here were completely *unable* to recognize two classic psychopaths -- Ravi and Robin This is a very heavy-handed diagnosis from someone who is not only not an expert in any medical or psychiatric field and who lacks utter objectivity when discussing either of these individuals. It is comically obvious that you have never been pandered to by either Robin or Ravi and it pisses you off. And while both of these men have given you lots of attention in the past you didn't like the kind of attention they gave you, you simply write them off as psychopaths. -- when they encountered them. Instead they admired them, became their groupies, and in one case actually created a small cult following around them. This is Barry's attempt at farcical interlude. But Barry, you are not a funny man in the way you think you might be. Leave the humour to Bob, he does it w better than you. That is worrisome, Another attempt at generating an audience chuckle or to elicit terror, I'm not actually sure which. especially in a group of people who claim to be Alright, who are the one's guilty of claim(ing) this? Show of hands please. sophisticated spiritual seekers who've been on the path for 20-30 years. To have spent that much time theoretically studying the psychology of enlightenment without being able to tell it from the psychology of psychopathology is shocking. Well, at least we know you have the low down and the situation in hand. We'll make sure to use you as our enlightened guidepost on all things psychologically suspect that might show up here. After all, you're the guy who never falls for fakes. That was fun Barry. Let's do this again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
More of Barry's fanatical obsession with Narcissistic Personality Disorder... The obvious, for the record: Barry isn't qualified to diagnose anyone with NPD. Not even a professional would do so without having met and examined the person--and certainly would not attempt to do so merely on the basis of their posts on an Internet forum. Not only that, but Barry repeatedly claimed that he never read the posts of the two people he demonizes here. Moreover, with regard to Robin, he gets his basic facts wrong. So his remarks here have zero credibility. Think about the arrival on FFL of someone who is as classic an example of NPD as has ever existed. Some people saw the endless But enough talking about me...let's talk about me drivel as what it was and lost interest, and some looked at the same drivel and somehow projected greatness onto it. Barry's description is so far from accurate that it's really disturbing. It's hallucinatory. Robin talked with other people about themselves, in depth, far, far more than Barry has ever done. And goodness knows Barry has been no slouch talking about himself. Robin tended to talk about himself primarily in response to others' interest (friendly or otherwise). Barry needs no such encouragement. To this day, the most dismaying thing about my entire experience at FFL has been the fact that many people here were completely *unable* to recognize two classic psychopaths -- Ravi and Robin -- when they encountered them. Instead they admired them, became their groupies, and in one case actually created a small cult following around them. That is worrisome, especially in a group of people who claim to be sophisticated spiritual seekers who've been on the path for 20-30 years. To have spent that much time theoretically studying the psychology of enlightenment without being able to tell it from the psychology of psychopathology is shocking. Nobody created any kind of cult following around Robin, nor around Ravi either. That's just insane. Being popular, even admired, is not the same as having a cult following. And to my knowledge no one here has ever claimed to be a sophisticated spiritual seeker. Nor as far as I can tell has anyone been studying the psychology of enlightenment, theoretically or otherwise. It's not clear what that might even mean (and even less clear what the psychology of psychopathology could mean). Plus which, of course, only someone who had been around Robin 30-some years ago could have a legitimate opinion about him in his supposedly enlightened state. We didn't see it here. For some reason Barry persists in thinking that Robin claimed to still be enlightened, when of course he'd done just the opposite. And Robin HIMSELF told us that he had been essentially crazy back then. To my knowledge, nobody took issue with him on that point. Bottom line, Barry is babbling incoherently. Something about Robin, and to a lesser extent about Ravi, seriously traumatized him and aggravated his own already significant psychopathology. He's always been completely unable to write rationally (let alone truthfully) about either Robin or Ravi, even now that both of them are long gone from FFL and pose no threat of competition. Barry always claims that he doesn't care what anyone thinks about him. But it's hard to see his repeated hysterical meltdowns about Robin and Ravi as anything but paranoid jealousy. Many here liked Robin and Ravi--and that seems to be what has dismayed Barry the most.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
For the record, Ann, I hadn't read your response to this post of Barry's before I posted mine, despite the fact that we both made some similar points. I would suggest -- and in fact have, many times -- that a synonym for charisma in many cases is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is a weakness in many people and their basic *lack* of self confidence and self awareness that makes them easy prey for those who have a surfeit of it. They encounter someone who is so taken with themselves that they can literally think of nothing and no one else and they project a bunch of admirable qualities onto a disorder that is largely devoid of them. I find this such a limited view and one that perhaps implies you are threatened by smart, confident, strong people and therefore find a way of analyzing them that makes these characteristics appear menacing and negative. Some people on this planet are actually possessed of leadership qualities, who are stronger and more interesting and arresting than others. These people are not necessarily those whose world is focused around themselves any more than anyone else. These can be human beings who are, seemingly, naturally self-confident, look as if they were born with an ease and strength that many others do not possess. The fact that you describe these kinds of charismatic individuals as those who are so taken with themselves that they can think of nothing and no one else is abysmally short sighted, Barry. Think about the arrival on FFL of someone who is as classic an example of NPD as has ever existed. Some people saw the endless But enough talking about me...let's talk about me drivel as what it was and lost interest, and some looked at the same drivel and somehow projected greatness onto it. Now you're sounding resentful and mistaken. No one here thinks of anyone else on this forum as great in the way that you mean it/imply here. To this day, the most dismaying thing about my entire experience at FFL has been the fact that many people here were completely *unable* to recognize two classic psychopaths -- Ravi and Robin This is a very heavy-handed diagnosis from someone who is not only not an expert in any medical or psychiatric field and who lacks utter objectivity when discussing either of these individuals. It is comically obvious that you have never been pandered to by either Robin or Ravi and it pisses you off. And while both of these men have given you lots of attention in the past you didn't like the kind of attention they gave you, you simply write them off as psychopaths. -- when they encountered them. Instead they admired them, became their groupies, and in one case actually created a small cult following around them. This is Barry's attempt at farcical interlude. But Barry, you are not a funny man in the way you think you might be. Leave the humour to Bob, he does it w better than you. That is worrisome, Another attempt at generating an audience chuckle or to elicit terror, I'm not actually sure which. especially in a group of people who claim to be Alright, who are the one's guilty of claim(ing) this? Show of hands please. sophisticated spiritual seekers who've been on the path for 20-30 years. To have spent that much time theoretically studying the psychology of enlightenment without being able to tell it from the psychology of psychopathology is shocking. Well, at least we know you have the low down and the situation in hand. We'll make sure to use you as our enlightened guidepost on all things psychologically suspect that might show up here. After all, you're the guy who never falls for fakes. That was fun Barry. Let's do this again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: For the record, Ann, I hadn't read your response to this post of Barry's before I posted mine, despite the fact that we both made some similar points. I am totally aware of that. When would you ever not be your own person and have your own original thoughts? Never. So I did have a little chuckle when I read your post after posting mine and knew you had been writing away and posted yours before seeing mine. Is it narcissistic of me to say (great) minds think alike? Oh, okay, some minds think alike then. Does this make us a cult? Are we two mutual groupies? Are we psychopaths? Dear Lord, I better go engage in some self reflection and get back to you on these questions. I trust you will do the same. In the meantime, we'll allow Barry an opportunity to crow about his knowing he would have pushed our buttons and getting all smug about his devil-may-care and fuck-'em-all world attitude. We are generous enough in spirit to allow him this little indulgence, are we not? I would suggest -- and in fact have, many times -- that a synonym for charisma in many cases is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is a weakness in many people and their basic *lack* of self confidence and self awareness that makes them easy prey for those who have a surfeit of it. They encounter someone who is so taken with themselves that they can literally think of nothing and no one else and they project a bunch of admirable qualities onto a disorder that is largely devoid of them. I find this such a limited view and one that perhaps implies you are threatened by smart, confident, strong people and therefore find a way of analyzing them that makes these characteristics appear menacing and negative. Some people on this planet are actually possessed of leadership qualities, who are stronger and more interesting and arresting than others. These people are not necessarily those whose world is focused around themselves any more than anyone else. These can be human beings who are, seemingly, naturally self-confident, look as if they were born with an ease and strength that many others do not possess. The fact that you describe these kinds of charismatic individuals as those who are so taken with themselves that they can think of nothing and no one else is abysmally short sighted, Barry. Think about the arrival on FFL of someone who is as classic an example of NPD as has ever existed. Some people saw the endless But enough talking about me...let's talk about me drivel as what it was and lost interest, and some looked at the same drivel and somehow projected greatness onto it. Now you're sounding resentful and mistaken. No one here thinks of anyone else on this forum as great in the way that you mean it/imply here. To this day, the most dismaying thing about my entire experience at FFL has been the fact that many people here were completely *unable* to recognize two classic psychopaths -- Ravi and Robin This is a very heavy-handed diagnosis from someone who is not only not an expert in any medical or psychiatric field and who lacks utter objectivity when discussing either of these individuals. It is comically obvious that you have never been pandered to by either Robin or Ravi and it pisses you off. And while both of these men have given you lots of attention in the past you didn't like the kind of attention they gave you, you simply write them off as psychopaths. -- when they encountered them. Instead they admired them, became their groupies, and in one case actually created a small cult following around them. This is Barry's attempt at farcical interlude. But Barry, you are not a funny man in the way you think you might be. Leave the humour to Bob, he does it w better than you. That is worrisome, Another attempt at generating an audience chuckle or to elicit terror, I'm not actually sure which. especially in a group of people who claim to be Alright, who are the one's guilty of claim(ing) this? Show of hands please. sophisticated spiritual seekers who've been on the path for 20-30 years. To have spent that much time theoretically studying the psychology of enlightenment without being able to tell it from the psychology of psychopathology is shocking. Well, at least we know you have the low down and the situation in hand. We'll make sure to use you as our enlightened guidepost on all things psychologically suspect that might show up here. After all, you're the guy who never falls for fakes. That was fun Barry. Let's do this again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Turq, separating the NP-Disordered as a consideration is just a scale with a range and distribution of consideration around the real spiritual charismatic. The Dis-ordered may just indicate bad nurture of upbringing or some bad nature of dis-ease of genetic material otherwise and both may be independent of a charismatic life of saintly-hood as a trans-formative affective energy field in time. Bad nurture or bad nature may travel with charisma evidently as part of the story. That is only human? The OEM of the human form does come with ego included as part of the factory package on earth. That evidently can give us all a lot to talk about and I appreciate your journalistic pursuit of the subject here. -Buck in the Dome ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. 1 I would suggest -- and in fact have, many times -- that a synonym for charisma in many cases is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is a weakness in many people and their basic *lack* of self confidence and self awareness that makes them easy prey for those who have a surfeit of it. They encounter someone who is so taken with themselves that they can literally think of nothing and no one else and they project a bunch of admirable qualities onto a disorder that is largely devoid of them. Think about the arrival on FFL of someone who is as classic an example of NPD as has ever existed. Some people saw the endless But enough talking about me...let's talk about me drivel as what it was and lost interest, and some looked at the same drivel and somehow projected greatness onto it. To this day, the most dismaying thing about my entire experience at FFL has been the fact that many people here were completely *unable* to recognize two classic psychopaths -- Ravi and Robin -- when they encountered them. Instead they admired them, became their groupies, and in one case actually created a small cult following around them. That is worrisome, especially in a group of people who claim to be sophisticated spiritual seekers who've been on the path for 20-30 years. To have spent that much time theoretically studying the psychology of enlightenment without being able to tell it from the psychology of psychopathology is shocking.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Introduction: When Prophets Die: The Succession Crisis in New Religions J. Gordon Melton When Prophets Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements By Timothy Miller 260 pages Turq, thanks for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate your frank insight. The experience reads like a condensed textbook example as to where new religion/spiritual groups can go (in life-cycle succession). -Buck in the Dome About [ Zen Master Rama was Frederick P. Lenz, ] http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html .turquoiseb wrote: .Buck wrote: Turq, How did it go in the Rama group in the longer Aftermath of Rama doing himself in? I honestly don't know, except for the few people I remained in contact with, primarily over the Internet. For some of them, even though I knew they shared my doubts about the whole thing, the Don't you dare say anything negative about a previous spiritual teacher or Don't say anything bad about somebody who is...uh...dead thang kicked in, and they just swung back into line parroting the dogma. For some it seemed to be truly devastating, in the same way that MMY's death probably was for TBs who had wrapped their whole lives around him. For others, it seemed to be an event that set them free, and enabled them to look further for their satisfactions in life, be they material or spiritual. Before he died, they were pretty much tied by the cult mindset into believing that he was the only possible source of such satisfactions. In other words, different strokes for different folks. Proly lots of immediate shock and trauma but there was existent a form of organization before he died and is there any vestige of a group afterward? As far as I can tell, being as far away from it as I am, there is. There are a few hardcore TBs who still like to pretend that they are Rama's tradition, even though he clearly didn't intend to leave one. I have never had anything to do with them, other than to attend one event they staged in Phoenix that I wrote about in the last story of Road Trip Mind. It was fun, but not the kind of fun I felt like hanging around. Before he died there were some who spoke for the group of Rama as to his teachings and and running the group. Did any of them come forward afterward with the teachings or an organization in some form? Succession was not planned for or necessarily indicated? Anybody go forward with it anyway in some form? Where did any of the key spiritual insiders tend to end up? Gravitate to be with whom? How did it transpire for the followers and some of the tru-believers in particular? I am just wondering by comparison. All good questions. I'll answer as best I can, *not* being part of it all, and thus having picked up only what I've picked up from afar, over the Net. He left *NO* successors. He left *NO* successor organization, except a foundation to distribute the wealth he had accumulated to further the study of what he called American Buddhism. They have -- to their credit -- spread this money around to a number of well-meaning and in many cases well-acting organizations to help do just that. There are a few people who have set up shop as spiritual teacher furthering his tradition. I know them all, and recommend none of them. I went out of my way to not be placed into the position of speaking for Rama, and I personally think his tradition would be better served if more had done so. Some -- who IMO had become dependent on always having a guru or teacher available to lead them -- felt his absence strongly, and flocked to other teachers. Not surprisingly, some flocked to people I considered charlatans, because IMO *their* charlatan energy was similar to Rama's (Sathya Sai Baba and Adi Da, for example). Some were IMO wiser, and went for more traditional Tibetan teachers who I occasionally met and respected, just never felt any pull to study with. Me, I just went my own Way. In other words, it probably went similarly to what happened after MMY kicked the bucket, except that he didn't kick the bucket out from underneath himself. :-) It's always *amazing* to me to see how many of the ones who tried to continue on teaching in Rama's name don't even *mention* his suicide on their websites, or if they do, use the hideous euphemism his Mahasamadhi. Give me a fuckin' break. Guy croaked himself. I'm *sure* he felt he had reasons for doing so. Anyone with as established a history of NPD as Rama had could have easily come up with such reasons. But still, he had a choice, and in my opinion he made a bad one, heavily influenced by a drug called Valium that he foolishly tried to kick his dependence on cold turkey, even though it says right on the label never to do this, *because of the risk of suicide*. At this point, I really am not the person you should ask as to whether there is much of a lingering tradition in his name. I'm
[FairfieldLife] RE: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Just as the confirmation of a prophecy rarely alters the direction of a group(10), so the death of the founder rarely proves fatal or leads to drastic alteration with the groups' life. But what does happen when the founder dies? Generally the same thing that happens in other types of organizations, that is, very simply, power passes to new leadership with more or less smoothness depending upon the extent and thoroughness of the preparation that has been made ahead of time. Introduction: When Prophets Die: The Succession Crisis in New Religions J. Gordon Melton When Prophets Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements By Timothy Miller 260 pages Turq, thanks for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate your frank insight. The experience reads like a condensed textbook example as to where new religion/spiritual groups can go (in life-cycle succession). -Buck in the Dome About [ Zen Master Rama was Frederick P. Lenz, ] http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html .turquoiseb wrote: .Buck wrote: Turq, How did it go in the Rama group in the longer Aftermath of Rama doing himself in? I honestly don't know, except for the few people I remained in contact with, primarily over the Internet. For some of them, even though I knew they shared my doubts about the whole thing, the Don't you dare say anything negative about a previous spiritual teacher or Don't say anything bad about somebody who is...uh...dead thang kicked in, and they just swung back into line parroting the dogma. For some it seemed to be truly devastating, in the same way that MMY's death probably was for TBs who had wrapped their whole lives around him. For others, it seemed to be an event that set them free, and enabled them to look further for their satisfactions in life, be they material or spiritual. Before he died, they were pretty much tied by the cult mindset into believing that he was the only possible source of such satisfactions. In other words, different strokes for different folks. Proly lots of immediate shock and trauma but there was existent a form of organization before he died and is there any vestige of a group afterward? As far as I can tell, being as far away from it as I am, there is. There are a few hardcore TBs who still like to pretend that they are Rama's tradition, even though he clearly didn't intend to leave one. I have never had anything to do with them, other than to attend one event they staged in Phoenix that I wrote about in the last story of Road Trip Mind. It was fun, but not the kind of fun I felt like hanging around. Before he died there were some who spoke for the group of Rama as to his teachings and and running the group. Did any of them come forward afterward with the teachings or an organization in some form? Succession was not planned for or necessarily indicated? Anybody go forward with it anyway in some form? Where did any of the key spiritual insiders tend to end up? Gravitate to be with whom? How did it transpire for the followers and some of the tru-believers in particular? I am just wondering by comparison. All good questions. I'll answer as best I can, *not* being part of it all, and thus having picked up only what I've picked up from afar, over the Net. He left *NO* successors. He left *NO* successor organization, except a foundation to distribute the wealth he had accumulated to further the study of what he called American Buddhism. They have -- to their credit -- spread this money around to a number of well-meaning and in many cases well-acting organizations to help do just that. There are a few people who have set up shop as spiritual teacher furthering his tradition. I know them all, and recommend none of them. I went out of my way to not be placed into the position of speaking for Rama, and I personally think his tradition would be better served if more had done so. Some -- who IMO had become dependent on always having a guru or teacher available to lead them -- felt his absence strongly, and flocked to other teachers. Not surprisingly, some flocked to people I considered charlatans, because IMO *their* charlatan energy was similar to Rama's (Sathya Sai Baba and Adi Da, for example). Some were IMO wiser, and went for more traditional Tibetan teachers who I occasionally met and respected, just never felt any pull to study with. Me, I just went my own Way. In other words, it probably went similarly to what happened after MMY kicked the bucket, except that he didn't kick the bucket out from underneath himself. :-) It's always *amazing* to me to see how many of the ones who tried to continue on teaching in Rama's name don't even *mention* his suicide on their websites, or if they do, use the hideous euphemism his Mahasamadhi. Give me a fuckin' break. Guy croaked himself. I'm *sure* he felt he had reasons for doing so. Anyone with
[FairfieldLife] RE: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
“In simple terms, the average founder of a new religion, especially one that shows some success during the first generation, is obviously an important factor in the growth and development of his/her movement. The movement is initially an extension of the founder's ideas, dreams, and emotional makeup. The leader may be valued as a teacher and/or venerated as a cosmic being, or even divine entity. However, once the founder articulates the group's teachings and practices, they exist independently of him/her and can and do develop a life of their own. Once the follower experiences the truth of the religion, that experience also exists independently. Once a single spokesperson for the founder arises, the possibility of transmitting the truth of the religion independently of the founder has been posited. If a leader has developed a religious vision with the depth to gain a significant following during his/her lifetime, it will be a religion in which the role of the individual who created the religion, however important, will be but one element, not the overwhelming reality.” Just as the confirmation of a prophecy rarely alters the direction of a group(10), so the death of the founder rarely proves fatal or leads to drastic alteration with the groups' life. But what does happen when the founder dies? Generally the same thing that happens in other types of organizations, that is, very simply, power passes to new leadership with more or less smoothness depending upon the extent and thoroughness of the preparation that has been made ahead of time. Introduction: When Prophets Die: The Succession Crisis in New Religions J. Gordon Melton When Prophets Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements By Timothy Miller 260 pages Turq, thanks for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate your frank insight. The experience reads like a condensed textbook example as to where new religion/spiritual groups can go (in life-cycle succession). -Buck in the Dome About [ Zen Master Rama was Frederick P. Lenz, ] http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html .turquoiseb wrote: .Buck wrote: Turq, How did it go in the Rama group in the longer Aftermath of Rama doing himself in? I honestly don't know, except for the few people I remained in contact with, primarily over the Internet. For some of them, even though I knew they shared my doubts about the whole thing, the Don't you dare say anything negative about a previous spiritual teacher or Don't say anything bad about somebody who is...uh...dead thang kicked in, and they just swung back into line parroting the dogma. For some it seemed to be truly devastating, in the same way that MMY's death probably was for TBs who had wrapped their whole lives around him. For others, it seemed to be an event that set them free, and enabled them to look further for their satisfactions in life, be they material or spiritual. Before he died, they were pretty much tied by the cult mindset into believing that he was the only possible source of such satisfactions. In other words, different strokes for different folks. Proly lots of immediate shock and trauma but there was existent a form of organization before he died and is there any vestige of a group afterward? As far as I can tell, being as far away from it as I am, there is. There are a few hardcore TBs who still like to pretend that they are Rama's tradition, even though he clearly didn't intend to leave one. I have never had anything to do with them, other than to attend one event they staged in Phoenix that I wrote about in the last story of Road Trip Mind. It was fun, but not the kind of fun I felt like hanging around. Before he died there were some who spoke for the group of Rama as to his teachings and and running the group. Did any of them come forward afterward with the teachings or an organization in some form? Succession was not planned for or necessarily indicated? Anybody go forward with it anyway in some form? Where did any of the key spiritual insiders tend to end up? Gravitate to be with whom? How did it transpire for the followers and some of the tru-believers in particular? I am just wondering by comparison. All good questions. I'll answer as best I can, *not* being part of it all, and thus having picked up only what I've picked up from afar, over the Net. He left *NO* successors. He left *NO* successor organization, except a foundation to distribute the wealth he had accumulated to further the study of what he called American Buddhism. They have -- to their credit -- spread this money around to a number of well-meaning and in many cases well-acting organizations to help do just that. There are a few people who have set up shop as spiritual teacher furthering his tradition. I know them all, and recommend none of them. I went out of my way to not be placed into the position
[FairfieldLife] RE: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. 1 “In simple terms, the average founder of a new religion, especially one that shows some success during the first generation, is obviously an important factor in the growth and development of his/her movement. The movement is initially an extension of the founder's ideas, dreams, and emotional makeup. The leader may be valued as a teacher and/or venerated as a cosmic being, or even divine entity. However, once the founder articulates the group's teachings and practices, they exist independently of him/her and can and do develop a life of their own. Once the follower experiences the truth of the religion, that experience also exists independently. Once a single spokesperson for the founder arises, the possibility of transmitting the truth of the religion independently of the founder has been posited. If a leader has developed a religious vision with the depth to gain a significant following during his/her lifetime, it will be a religion in which the role of the individual who created the religion, however important, will be but one element, not the overwhelming reality.” Just as the confirmation of a prophecy rarely alters the direction of a group(10), so the death of the founder rarely proves fatal or leads to drastic alteration with the groups' life. But what does happen when the founder dies? Generally the same thing that happens in other types of organizations, that is, very simply, power passes to new leadership with more or less smoothness depending upon the extent and thoroughness of the preparation that has been made ahead of time. Introduction: When Prophets Die: The Succession Crisis in New Religions J. Gordon Melton When Prophets Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements By Timothy Miller 260 pages Turq, thanks for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate your frank insight. The experience reads like a condensed textbook example as to where new religion/spiritual groups can go (in life-cycle succession). -Buck in the Dome About [ Zen Master Rama was Frederick P. Lenz, ] http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html .turquoiseb wrote: .Buck wrote: Turq, How did it go in the Rama group in the longer Aftermath of Rama doing himself in? I honestly don't know, except for the few people I remained in contact with, primarily over the Internet. For some of them, even though I knew they shared my doubts about the whole thing, the Don't you dare say anything negative about a previous spiritual teacher or Don't say anything bad about somebody who is...uh...dead thang kicked in, and they just swung back into line parroting the dogma. For some it seemed to be truly devastating, in the same way that MMY's death probably was for TBs who had wrapped their whole lives around him. For others, it seemed to be an event that set them free, and enabled them to look further for their satisfactions in life, be they material or spiritual. Before he died, they were pretty much tied by the cult mindset into believing that he was the only possible source of such satisfactions. In other words, different strokes for different folks. Proly lots of immediate shock and trauma but there was existent a form of organization before he died and is there any vestige of a group afterward? As far as I can tell, being as far away from it as I am, there is. There are a few hardcore TBs who still like to pretend that they are Rama's tradition, even though he clearly didn't intend to leave one. I have never had anything to do with them, other than to attend one event they staged in Phoenix that I wrote about in the last story of Road Trip Mind. It was fun, but not the kind of fun I felt like hanging around. Before he died there were some who spoke for the group of Rama as to his teachings and and running the group. Did any of them come forward afterward with the teachings or an organization in some form? Succession was not planned for or necessarily indicated? Anybody go forward with it anyway in some form? Where did any of the key spiritual insiders tend to end up? Gravitate to be with whom? How did it transpire for the followers and some of the tru-believers in particular? I am just wondering by comparison. All good questions. I'll answer as best I can, *not* being part of it all, and thus having picked up only what I've picked up from afar, over the Net. He left *NO* successors. He left *NO* successor
[FairfieldLife] RE: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
“It is a common assumption among social scientific observers of new religions (populary termed cults) that the period immediately following the death of the founder/leader of a group is critical, a period that generally leads to major disruption and often fatal consequences for the group itself. This widely held assumption is not so much a finding derived from the observation of the phenomenon in specific situations as it is a conclusion drawn from early definitions of the term cult and lists of the characteristics of cults. According to the traditional wisdom in the field, among the most important characteristics of a cult (and the one most relevant to understanding the role of the founder) is that its leadership is invested in the person of a charismatic individual. That assumption ties cults to Max Weber's classic discussion of charismatic leaders.” Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. 1 “In simple terms, the average founder of a new religion, especially one that shows some success during the first generation, is obviously an important factor in the growth and development of his/her movement. The movement is initially an extension of the founder's ideas, dreams, and emotional makeup. The leader may be valued as a teacher and/or venerated as a cosmic being, or even divine entity. However, once the founder articulates the group's teachings and practices, they exist independently of him/her and can and do develop a life of their own. Once the follower experiences the truth of the religion, that experience also exists independently. Once a single spokesperson for the founder arises, the possibility of transmitting the truth of the religion independently of the founder has been posited. If a leader has developed a religious vision with the depth to gain a significant following during his/her lifetime, it will be a religion in which the role of the individual who created the religion, however important, will be but one element, not the overwhelming reality.” Just as the confirmation of a prophecy rarely alters the direction of a group(10), so the death of the founder rarely proves fatal or leads to drastic alteration with the groups' life. But what does happen when the founder dies? Generally the same thing that happens in other types of organizations, that is, very simply, power passes to new leadership with more or less smoothness depending upon the extent and thoroughness of the preparation that has been made ahead of time. Introduction: When Prophets Die: The Succession Crisis in New Religions J. Gordon Melton When Prophets Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements By Timothy Miller 260 pages Turq, thanks for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate your frank insight. The experience reads like a condensed textbook example as to where new religion/spiritual groups can go (in life-cycle succession). -Buck in the Dome About [ Zen Master Rama was Frederick P. Lenz, ] http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html .turquoiseb wrote: .Buck wrote: Turq, How did it go in the Rama group in the longer Aftermath of Rama doing himself in? I honestly don't know, except for the few people I remained in contact with, primarily over the Internet. For some of them, even though I knew they shared my doubts about the whole thing, the Don't you dare say anything negative about a previous spiritual teacher or Don't say anything bad about somebody who is...uh...dead thang kicked in, and they just swung back into line parroting the dogma. For some it seemed to be truly devastating, in the same way that MMY's death probably was for TBs who had wrapped their whole lives around him. For others, it seemed to be an event that set them free, and enabled them to look further for their satisfactions in life, be they material or spiritual. Before he died, they were pretty much tied by the cult mindset into believing that he was the only possible source of such satisfactions. In other words, different strokes for different folks. Proly lots of immediate shock and trauma but there was existent a form of organization before he died and is there any vestige of a group afterward? As far as I can tell, being as far away from it as I am, there is. There are a few hardcore TBs who still like to pretend that they are Rama's tradition, even though he clearly didn't intend to leave one. I have never had anything to do with them, other than to attend one event they
[FairfieldLife] RE: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements.
Noteworthy in their comparative leadership succession is that both groups, Lenz and TM, like other modern spiritual movements went on to be in the hands of 'boards' in succession from their charismatic founder-leaders. http://globalpeaceproject.net/about-us/the-foundation/brahmananda-saraswati-foundatio-board-of-directors/ http://globalpeaceproject.net/about-us/the-foundation/brahmananda-saraswati-foundatio-board-of-directors/ “It is a common assumption among social scientific observers of new religions (populary termed cults) that the period immediately following the death of the founder/leader of a group is critical, a period that generally leads to major disruption and often fatal consequences for the group itself. This widely held assumption is not so much a finding derived from the observation of the phenomenon in specific situations as it is a conclusion drawn from early definitions of the term cult and lists of the characteristics of cults. According to the traditional wisdom in the field, among the most important characteristics of a cult (and the one most relevant to understanding the role of the founder) is that its leadership is invested in the person of a charismatic individual. That assumption ties cults to Max Weber's classic discussion of charismatic leaders.” Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary [people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. 1 “In simple terms, the average founder of a new religion, especially one that shows some success during the first generation, is obviously an important factor in the growth and development of his/her movement. The movement is initially an extension of the founder's ideas, dreams, and emotional makeup. The leader may be valued as a teacher and/or venerated as a cosmic being, or even divine entity. However, once the founder articulates the group's teachings and practices, they exist independently of him/her and can and do develop a life of their own. Once the follower experiences the truth of the religion, that experience also exists independently. Once a single spokesperson for the founder arises, the possibility of transmitting the truth of the religion independently of the founder has been posited. If a leader has developed a religious vision with the depth to gain a significant following during his/her lifetime, it will be a religion in which the role of the individual who created the religion, however important, will be but one element, not the overwhelming reality.” Just as the confirmation of a prophecy rarely alters the direction of a group(10), so the death of the founder rarely proves fatal or leads to drastic alteration with the groups' life. But what does happen when the founder dies? Generally the same thing that happens in other types of organizations, that is, very simply, power passes to new leadership with more or less smoothness depending upon the extent and thoroughness of the preparation that has been made ahead of time. Introduction: When Prophets Die: The Succession Crisis in New Religions J. Gordon Melton When Prophets Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements By Timothy Miller 260 pages Turq, thanks for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate your frank insight. The experience reads like a condensed textbook example as to where new religion/spiritual groups can go (in life-cycle succession). -Buck in the Dome About [ Zen Master Rama was Frederick P. Lenz, ] http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html http://www.skepdic.com/rama.html .turquoiseb wrote: .Buck wrote: Turq, How did it go in the Rama group in the longer Aftermath of Rama doing himself in? I honestly don't know, except for the few people I remained in contact with, primarily over the Internet. For some of them, even though I knew they shared my doubts about the whole thing, the Don't you dare say anything negative about a previous spiritual teacher or Don't say anything bad about somebody who is...uh...dead thang kicked in, and they just swung back into line parroting the dogma. For some it seemed to be truly devastating, in the same way that MMY's death probably was for TBs who had wrapped their whole lives around him. For others, it seemed to be an event that set them free, and enabled them to look further for their satisfactions in life, be they material or spiritual. Before he died, they were pretty much tied by the cult mindset into believing that he was the only possible source of such satisfactions. In other words, different strokes for different folks.
