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