Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Legitimacy
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Caligari
Apr 27, 2012, 12:38:23 AM4/27/12
to
Over fifteen years ago I bought and read a sociological book on NRMs
(New Religious Movements.) That was the term sociologists in the book
preferred to use for the variety of new age groups that sprung up in
the 70's. The author, Thomas Robbins, defined three stages for NRMs
viability: 1st an expansive growth, 2nd leveling off and 3rd where
the group either gained legitimacy in society or floundered. To that,
LEC looks to be in the third stage of gaining social legitimacy. How
do you see that going and where will it likely result?
-- Caligari
(New Religious Movements.) That was the term sociologists in the book
preferred to use for the variety of new age groups that sprung up in
the 70's. The author, Thomas Robbins, defined three stages for NRMs
viability: 1st an expansive growth, 2nd leveling off and 3rd where
the group either gained legitimacy in society or floundered. To that,
LEC looks to be in the third stage of gaining social legitimacy. How
do you see that going and where will it likely result?
-- Caligari
Tex
Apr 27, 2012, 1:58:02 AM4/27/12
to
When the 60 Minutes episode aired I thought that would surely be the end of them. Since my departure was abrupt and somewhat bitter, I was reveling in that a bit.
Over 20 years later they are still going strong.
Quietly, they keep soldiering on.
I'm still a bit surprised by their success after the scandal.
I also know the Training I took was an experience I wouldn't trade in.
Keep the seminar, get rid of management. :)
Caligari
Apr 27, 2012, 2:20:04 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 26, 10:58 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 27, 2012 12:38:23 AM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> > Over fifteen years ago I bought and read a sociological book on NRMs
> > (New Religious Movements.) That was the term sociologists in the book
> > preferred to use for the variety of new age groups that sprung up in
> > the 70's. The author, Thomas Robbins, defined three stages for NRMs
> > viability: 1st an expansive growth, 2nd leveling off and 3rd where
> > the group either gained legitimacy in society or floundered. To that,
> > LEC looks to be in the third stage of gaining social legitimacy. How
> > do you see that going and where will it likely result?
>
> > -- Caligari
>
> It seemed like that was happening in the 70s-80s when Jphn Denver was interviewing Werner on the Tonight Show, Werner was touring with Bucky Fuller or lecturing at NASA etc.
But the Buck Fuller, A World That Works for Everyone, Hunger Project,
> On Friday, April 27, 2012 12:38:23 AM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> > Over fifteen years ago I bought and read a sociological book on NRMs
> > (New Religious Movements.) That was the term sociologists in the book
> > preferred to use for the variety of new age groups that sprung up in
> > the 70's. The author, Thomas Robbins, defined three stages for NRMs
> > viability: 1st an expansive growth, 2nd leveling off and 3rd where
> > the group either gained legitimacy in society or floundered. To that,
> > LEC looks to be in the third stage of gaining social legitimacy. How
> > do you see that going and where will it likely result?
>
> > -- Caligari
>
> It seemed like that was happening in the 70s-80s when Jphn Denver was interviewing Werner on the Tonight Show, Werner was touring with Bucky Fuller or lecturing at NASA etc.
etc. initiatives were more about expansion and changing the world,
than the legitimacy of a business consulting, business/relationship
courses, college papers and courses, etc.
>
> When the 60 Minutes episode aired I thought that would surely be the end of them. Since my departure was abrupt and somewhat bitter, I was reveling in that a bit.
>
> Over 20 years later they are still going strong.
> Quietly, they keep soldiering on.
head of est/Landmark and left to Europe.
Message has been deleted
Sinead (Author)
Apr 27, 2012, 7:38:50 AM4/27/12
to
Landmark Education. Who needs another positive thinking social club.
John Cassavetes recut many of his early films including “Husbands” and
“Opening Night,” after successful test screenings, because the
audience was enjoying them too much and weren’t getting what the films
were about. Reversely, Stanley Kubrick was said to have cast Tom
Cruise and Nicole Kidman in "Eyes Wide Shut" in part hoping that
their presence would bring him a level of success he had not achieved
and wanted.
Werner once predicted in the early 80's that people would try and
shape est and The Forum to be a thing that was more digestible by the
culture. It is not the way I would go with Landmark or making a film.
But the culture pulls for that and it takes a beast to not succumb to
the pressure and be what a things is suppose to be.
Were he still alive, Cassavettes would have been the perfect "popular"
actor to play Werner Erhard in a bio pic. A rebel, willing to go to
extremes, loved people and was smart enough not to give a shit about
what the masses thought.
Sinead (Author)
Apr 27, 2012, 7:39:12 AM4/27/12
to
Caligari
Apr 27, 2012, 12:18:17 PM4/27/12
to
So LEC is fine with publications questioning their legitimacy?:
============
Landmark actions for alleged defamation
Cases in the United States of America
Condé Nast Publications / Self magazine (1993)
In 1993, Landmark Education Corporation sued Self Magazine (Condé Nast
Publications) for defamation. The defamation claimed by Landmark
Education Corporation involved the article published in February 1993.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court denied. In a
settlement-agreement, Landmark Education released Condé Nast
Publications from any and all claims relating to the article, and Self
Magazine issued a one-sentence editor's note stating that the magazine
had no "first-hand" evidence that the "Landmark Forum is a cult".
The Cult Awareness Network / Cynthia Kisser (1994)
In 1994 Landmark Education Corporation sued the original Cult
Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser (its then Executive Director) for
(among other allegations) issuing leaflets about "Destructive Cults".
The entry "The Forum/est/the Hunger Project" appeared in a "partial
list of groups about which CAN has received complaints."
During a deposition Kisser admitted that CAN held no opinion with
respect to classifying Landmark Education as a destructive cult.[3]
The agreement reached in November 1997 to conclude this case involved
an undertaking by CAN not to distribute its leaflets mentioning
Landmark, est or The Forum, or to sell Steven Pressman’s book entitled
Outrageous Betrayal.
Dr. Margaret Singer (1996)
In 1996 Landmark Education Corporation sued Dr. Margaret Singer, an
adjunct UC Berkeley professor of psychology, for defamation. Singer
had mentioned Landmark Education in her co-authored book Cults in Our
Midst (1995, ISBN 0-7879-0051-6); the text did not make it entirely
clear whether she labeled the organization as a cult or not. The
second edition of the book, released before the conclusion of the
court case, omitted mentioning Landmark Education by name. Subsequent
to the court case, Singer signed a terse statement on 7 May 1997 which
read: "I do not believe that either Landmark or The Landmark Forum is
a cult or sect, or meets the criteria of a cult or sect." [4] Singer
admitted at deposition[citation needed] that she had "no personal,
firsthand knowledge of Landmark or its programs."
Elle Magazine - Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S. (1998)
In 1998, Landmark Education Corporation sued Hachette Filipacchi
Media, U.S. publishers of Elle Magazine, for an allegedly defamatory
article published in Elle magazine (August 1998) written by Rosemary
Mahoney and entitled: " Do you believe in miracles?"
The court dismissed the claim, stating that Landmark Education had not
"pled special damages", and had failed "to adequately plead actual
malice".
Landmark Education Corp. vs. Pressman (1998)
In 1998, Landmark Education Corporation attempted to compel Steven
Pressman to respond to deposition-questions aimed at obtaining the
confidential sources he had used for research on his book Outrageous
Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile (ISBN
0-312-09296-2).
Landmark Education Corporation brought the suit as a means of
compelling discovery for use in the then-active Cult Awareness Network
litigation. The discovery commissioner who entered an interim order in
the matter commented: "it does not appear that the information sought
[from Mr. Pressman] is directly relevant or goes to the heart of the
[CAN] action, or that alternative sources have been exhausted or are
inadequate."
Landmark Education Corporation dropped the action against Pressman
after the settlement of its litigation against the Cult Awareness
Network. (See above)
...
============
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_Education_litigation#Landmark_actions_for_alleged_defamation
Tex
Apr 27, 2012, 12:47:09 PM4/27/12
to
Who determines legitimacy in this case, the Mullahs, Bishops or the Southern Baptist Conference?
I recall est emphasizing not being committed to "looking good."
My guess is they don't care, as long as they have their thin sliver of the pie.
There will be no declarations bestowing legitimacy on them anytime soon.
The Bishops still view the Protestants as illegitimate heretics, DontChaKnow!
Caligari
Apr 27, 2012, 12:52:48 PM4/27/12
to
>
> Do you see a difference between suing for libel and seeking legitimacy?
Do you see that suing for libel can be part of seeking cultural
> Do you see a difference between suing for libel and seeking legitimacy?
legitimacy?
> Who determines legitimacy in this case, the Mullahs, Bishops or the Southern Baptist Conference?
In a secular society, the media is a major influence to what's
> Who determines legitimacy in this case, the Mullahs, Bishops or the Southern Baptist Conference?
considered legitimate.
>
> I recall est emphasizing not being committed to "looking good."
above. LEC is the legitimacy phase.
-- Caligari
Tex
Apr 27, 2012, 1:58:14 PM4/27/12
to
Protecting your name against the below.
If you want to frame it in another way for your argument, be my guest.
Libel is libel.
Libel
defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b.
the act or crime of publishing it.
c.
a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2.
anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
>
> > Who determines legitimacy in this case, the Mullahs, Bishops or the Southern Baptist Conference?
>
> In a secular society, the media is a major influence to what's
> considered legitimate.
>
> >
> > I recall est emphasizing not being committed to "looking good."
>
> est would be the growth to stable position in the phases outlined
> above. LEC is the legitimacy phase.
40 years of continued business.
> > Who determines legitimacy in this case, the Mullahs, Bishops or the Southern Baptist Conference?
>
> In a secular society, the media is a major influence to what's
> considered legitimate.
>
> >
> > I recall est emphasizing not being committed to "looking good."
>
> est would be the growth to stable position in the phases outlined
> above. LEC is the legitimacy phase.
That's pretty stable.
Lasted longer than Wang or DEC (Digital Equipment Corp)
I'm still surprised.
Thought they would fade away after 1992.
Caligari
Apr 27, 2012, 2:03:16 PM4/27/12
to
legitimate.
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
Apr 27, 2012, 1:42:07 PM4/27/12
to
> How about repetition? ;)
>
> So LEC is fine with publications questioning their legitimacy?:
"legitimacy" being questioned? You are? Rick Ross is? Ellen is? So
much loaded BS. It is well documented in AFL, that you three have 0
tolerance for having your "legitimacy" "questioned". If you three were
in charge of a concern the size of Landmark it would look like Nazi
Germany. Just view the running of the Ross message board for evidence
of this.
Landmark Education has been remarkably tolerant of your groups non-
stop harassment and slander for decades, God forbid they pipe up and
call people out of spreading lies about their company.
Message has been deleted
Caligari
Apr 27, 2012, 2:37:31 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 10:42 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
-- Caligari
wrote:
> > How about repetition? ;)
>
> > So LEC is fine with publications questioning their legitimacy?:
>
> Who is ever "fine" with having, this thing you have chosen to call,
> "legitimacy" being questioned? You are? Rick Ross is? Ellen is? So
> much loaded BS. It is well documented in AFL, that you three have 0
> tolerance for having your "legitimacy" "questioned". If you three were
> in charge of a concern the size of Landmark it would look like Nazi
> Germany. Just view the running of the Ross message board for evidence
> of this.
>
So those critical of LEC should be considered illegitimate?
>
> > So LEC is fine with publications questioning their legitimacy?:
>
> Who is ever "fine" with having, this thing you have chosen to call,
> "legitimacy" being questioned? You are? Rick Ross is? Ellen is? So
> much loaded BS. It is well documented in AFL, that you three have 0
> tolerance for having your "legitimacy" "questioned". If you three were
> in charge of a concern the size of Landmark it would look like Nazi
> Germany. Just view the running of the Ross message board for evidence
> of this.
>
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
Apr 27, 2012, 9:29:58 PM4/27/12
to
> So those critical of LEC should be considered illegitimate?
>
> -- Caligari
party, so they must be important categories for you to lump the world
around you into to explain it to yourself. They are not part of how I
view or speak about anything, so I cannot answer you.
Serena Nordstrup
Apr 28, 2012, 7:02:47 AM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27, 11:39 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadauth...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
> Werner once predicted in the early 80's that people would try and
> shape est and The Forum to be a thing that was more digestible by the
> culture.
And did the ~source~ also prophesy the end of WE and A and the manner
of its destruction ?
wrote:
<snip>
> Werner once predicted in the early 80's that people would try and
> shape est and The Forum to be a thing that was more digestible by the
> culture.
of its destruction ?
patrick
May 3, 2012, 12:40:32 PM5/3/12
to
On Apr 27, 12:42 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
in a company that touts its "no truth", i do understand why they get
all bent out of shape
of someone challenging them with truth.
wrote:
all bent out of shape
of someone challenging them with truth.
patrick
May 3, 2012, 12:46:22 PM5/3/12
to
what about that chinese fast food company for example.
the owner states that u dont have to be a grad to join the company but
u do have to do a course or two of landmarks to be in management.
there have been other companies that have mentioned basically the
same thing in the past.
microsoft i believe has some of its people in the forum.
there are many others.......
Caligari
May 3, 2012, 4:36:17 PM5/3/12
to
true and workable results and studies as evidence of satisfaction?
Why does a company say life is empty and meaningless while stating
their product brings meaning and fulfillment into customers lives?
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
May 3, 2012, 6:25:00 PM5/3/12
to
> Why does a company profess there is no truth
truth" ?
Werner Erhard, est and L.E presented an idea that included the idea
that it was just a made up notion and was not to be believed and was
to be used as a frame to look through when appropriate. At no time
was it ever "professed there is no truth" as you are presenting here.
You spin the notion presented in programs which was "life is empty and
meaningless and it is empty and meaningless that it is empty and
meaningless." for your own purposes.
> while claiming to provide
> true and workable results and studies as evidence of satisfaction?
claim that anything was "evidence"? You slip these spins as other
people's words for your own purposes.
> Why does a company say life is empty and meaningless while stating
> their product brings meaning and fulfillment into customers lives?
that "their product brings meaning " "into customers lives"?
>
> -- Caligari
Message has been deleted
Caligari
May 3, 2012, 6:48:22 PM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 3:25 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadauthor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The Yankelovich Study,
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/The_Landmark_Forum/What_People_Say/Independent_Research_Case_Studies_and_Surveys/Yankelovich_Study.aspx
one of the many studies LEC promotes as evidence of true, meaningful
and fulfilling results from their courses,
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/The_Landmark_Forum/What_People_Say/Independent_Research_Case_Studies_and_Surveys.aspx
-- Caligari
wrote:
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/The_Landmark_Forum/What_People_Say/Independent_Research_Case_Studies_and_Surveys/Yankelovich_Study.aspx
one of the many studies LEC promotes as evidence of true, meaningful
and fulfilling results from their courses,
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/The_Landmark_Forum/What_People_Say/Independent_Research_Case_Studies_and_Surveys.aspx
-- Caligari
Tex
May 3, 2012, 9:32:30 PM5/3/12
to
On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:25:00 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > Why does a company profess there is no truth
>
> When has est or Landmark Education ever "professed there is no truth" ?
In est there was the saying that "rocks are hard and water is wet"
> > Why does a company profess there is no truth
>
> When has est or Landmark Education ever "professed there is no truth" ?
What is, is.
What isn't, isn't.
This seems to be an acknowledgment that certain truths are self evident, to quote Jefferson.
Religions, on the other hand, claim to have "Truth" in their possession.
This is why Patrick still has his panties in a bunch.
His religious "truth" is at odds with that of Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
These are "truths" of agreement among "true" believers.
Cal, I'm surprised you are taking the same angle as Patrick with the "no truth" comments. I think you know better than this.
Would you like to clarify?
Perhaps I've missed something.
Never heard "there is no truth."
Wasn't part of my est experience from 1982 to 1984.
maybe this came later??????
Caligari
May 4, 2012, 3:31:05 AM5/4/12
to
On May 3, 6:32 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:25:00 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > > Why does a company profess there is no truth
>
> > When has est or Landmark Education ever "professed there is no truth" ?
>
> In est there was the saying that "rocks are hard and water is wet"
> What is, is.
> What isn't, isn't.
>
> This seems to be an acknowledgment that certain truths are self evident, to quote Jefferson.
>
> Religions, on the other hand, claim to have "Truth" in their possession.
> This is why Patrick still has his panties in a bunch.
>
> His religious "truth" is at odds with that of Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
>
> These are "truths" of agreement among "true" believers.
>
> Cal, I'm surprised you are taking the same angle as Patrick with the "no truth" comments. I think you know better than this.
>
> Would you like to clarify?
>
> Perhaps I've missed something.
> Never heard "there is no truth."
>
> Wasn't part of my est experience from 1982 to 1984.
> maybe this came later??????
>
>
Hi Tex,
> On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:25:00 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > > Why does a company profess there is no truth
>
> > When has est or Landmark Education ever "professed there is no truth" ?
>
> In est there was the saying that "rocks are hard and water is wet"
> What is, is.
> What isn't, isn't.
>
> This seems to be an acknowledgment that certain truths are self evident, to quote Jefferson.
>
> Religions, on the other hand, claim to have "Truth" in their possession.
> This is why Patrick still has his panties in a bunch.
>
> His religious "truth" is at odds with that of Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
>
> These are "truths" of agreement among "true" believers.
>
> Cal, I'm surprised you are taking the same angle as Patrick with the "no truth" comments. I think you know better than this.
>
> Would you like to clarify?
>
> Perhaps I've missed something.
> Never heard "there is no truth."
>
> Wasn't part of my est experience from 1982 to 1984.
> maybe this came later??????
>
>
Here's an excerpt of the section of the est Training on reality --
what is true and real -- from Luke Rhinehart's "The Book of est"
endorsed by Werner, http://markettorrent.com/topic/5109?page=18 :
================
“And on the other side we have what most people call ‘reality’, which
is entirely dependent on agreement, entirely dependent on agreement.
If we get enough people to agree that the world is flat, bingo!, we
got a real flat world. If physicists agree that the atom is the
ultimate element of matter, then the atom is the real ultimate element
of matter. Of course, when they then agree that the electron is the
ultimate element, then reality changes. And of course, later they'll
agree that the electron is not the ultimate element ... it's a
positron, or a piece of antimatter, or something else — it all depends
on whether it's a week-day or a week-end.
“You turkeys!” Michael shouts at us. “We got ourselves one giant of a
minor problem: what everyone calls real is really illusion, is really
unreal. And what everyone calls unreality is actually the most real
thing we know. The only problem we have up on the board is that what
we've labeled ‘reality’ is actually ‘unreality’, and what we labeled
‘unreality’ is ‘reality’.”
Michael stares out at us for a moment and then goes to the blackboard
and draws a thick line through the word REALITY and prints over it
UNREALITY, and draws another line through UNREALITY on the right and
prints over it the word REALITY. When he has finished he bounces back
to the front of the platform.
“But let me warn you right now,” he goes on loudly, “don't let this
get out of this room ... because they'll cancel your vote. I mean you
start going around telling people that physicists spend all their time
playing with illusions and they'll lock you up. A physicist won't be
bothered, he knows that his whole progression is based on this
intelligent playing with agreed-upon unrealities, but everybody else
will cancel your vote.
“And try telling people that the only real thing is your experience.
Lots of luck. No, we'll have to stick to the code words society
accepts. When we talk about the unreal physical universe we'll have to
call it by its code word: ‘reality’. And when we talk about our real
experiences of the training we'll have to call it ‘unreality’. After
all, according to society the ‘real’ training must be something we can
measure, something typed up in this notebook maybe, something we can
all agree upon...”
================
Werner also refer to this in the FT interview,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/feb214a8-8f88-11e1-98b1-00144feab49a.html#axzz1tMK0Vxxp
================
And then he says: “Look, I’m going to do something with you we do in
the training. I’m going to ask you where you are, and you are going to
say, ‘Here.’ ”
So we do this, and then he asks: “And you are always here, right?”
No, I say, I’ve never been here before. He looks annoyed.
“But you are here. Where you are, Lucy, this object you call Lucy, is
here.”
I nod.
“And where Werner is, is there.”
I agree.
“You do see me, do you not? Where is Lucy-seeing-Werner happening?”
On the back of my retina, I say. He shakes his head.
“What you told me is your theory about seeing. I want to know where
you seeing Werner is happening. Point.”
I duly point to my brain.
“You have no idea what’s in there, woman!” Erhard jabs an angry finger
in my direction. “Godammit, Susie, your seeing Werner is happening
where Werner is.”
================
Truth, reality is a subjective experience -- external reality does not
exist, is not real. The question then is what is this subjective
experience that is real or true?
-- Caligari
Tex
May 4, 2012, 2:27:37 PM5/4/12
to
This is more or less how I remember it also.
No mention of "Truth" or no Truth" as Patrick often frames it.
You seem to be proposing something above and then asking a question about that proposal.
"Truth, reality is a subjective experience -- external reality does not
exist, is not real."
Caligari
May 4, 2012, 2:45:01 PM5/4/12
to
On May 4, 11:27 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, May 4, 2012 3:31:05 AM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> > On May 3, 6:32 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:25:00 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > > > > Why does a company profess there is no truth
>
> > > > When has est or Landmark Education ever "professed there is no truth" ?
>
> > > In est there was the saying that "rocks are hard and water is wet"
> > > What is, is.
> > > What isn't, isn't.
>
> > > This seems to be an acknowledgment that certain truths are self evident, to quote Jefferson.
>
> > > Religions, on the other hand, claim to have "Truth" in their possession.
> > > This is why Patrick still has his panties in a bunch.
>
> > > His religious "truth" is at odds with that of Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
>
> > > These are "truths" of agreement among "true" believers.
>
> > > Cal, I'm surprised you are taking the same angle as Patrick with the "no truth" comments. I think you know better than this.
>
> > > Would you like to clarify?
>
> > > Perhaps I've missed something.
> > > Never heard "there is no truth."
>
> > > Wasn't part of my est experience from 1982 to 1984.
> > > maybe this came later??????
>
> > Hi Tex,
>
> > Here's an excerpt of the section of the est Training on reality --
> > what is true and real -- from Luke Rhinehart's "The Book of est"
> > endorsed by Werner,http://markettorrent.com/topic/5109?page=18:
> On Friday, May 4, 2012 3:31:05 AM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> > On May 3, 6:32 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:25:00 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > > > > Why does a company profess there is no truth
>
> > > > When has est or Landmark Education ever "professed there is no truth" ?
>
> > > In est there was the saying that "rocks are hard and water is wet"
> > > What is, is.
> > > What isn't, isn't.
>
> > > This seems to be an acknowledgment that certain truths are self evident, to quote Jefferson.
>
> > > Religions, on the other hand, claim to have "Truth" in their possession.
> > > This is why Patrick still has his panties in a bunch.
>
> > > His religious "truth" is at odds with that of Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
>
> > > These are "truths" of agreement among "true" believers.
>
> > > Cal, I'm surprised you are taking the same angle as Patrick with the "no truth" comments. I think you know better than this.
>
> > > Would you like to clarify?
>
> > > Perhaps I've missed something.
> > > Never heard "there is no truth."
>
> > > Wasn't part of my est experience from 1982 to 1984.
> > > maybe this came later??????
>
> > Hi Tex,
>
> > Here's an excerpt of the section of the est Training on reality --
> > what is true and real -- from Luke Rhinehart's "The Book of est"
experience not an external reality knowable through reason.
Then the question is what is this reality or truth of "experience"?
-- Caligari
Tex
May 4, 2012, 5:04:22 PM5/4/12
to
It is more like this.
Check out this color blindness test and tell me what you see.
What is your reality?
I can tell you mine, and although the objective reality is the same, the reality of what we "see" may be very different.
http://colorvisiontesting.com/online%20test.htm#demonstration card
patrick
May 4, 2012, 5:49:17 PM5/4/12
to
tubby
May 4, 2012, 7:58:38 PM5/4/12
to
How would Caligari explain the many blind spots we all have.
eg When you look at the desktop
of a new software program and for the love of you you cannot see a
button you have to go to.
When someone finally points it out to you or shows it to you suddenly
you see it.
Where was it before someone pointed it out to you???
Was it reason you did not see it ?? or was it plain individual
perception .
If someone had not pointed it out to you
it could have remained a blind spot.
So is agreement an important factor in all of our perceptions of the
so called reality around us???
cheers
Caligari
May 4, 2012, 8:56:00 PM5/4/12
to
Did you do the est Training or the Forum? And when, if you want to
say?
-- Caligari
tubby
May 4, 2012, 11:48:53 PM5/4/12
to
De Bono and others acknowledge that!!!!!!!!!
Something that modern science with all its blind spots simply
ignores!!!
Cheers
tubby
May 4, 2012, 11:45:57 PM5/4/12
to
It seems like yesterday.
Most of our Forum leaders were American, and they had a better sense
of humour
than the Aussie ones.
I have fond memories of those encounters and even the shit ones were a
learning curve
although at the time I did not understand why I was behaving in that
manner.
cheers
Message has been deleted
Caligari
May 5, 2012, 12:38:40 PM5/5/12
to
no actual say on what is real.
-- Caligari
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > <snip>
Serena Nordstrup
May 6, 2012, 3:26:24 AM5/6/12
to
tubby
May 6, 2012, 3:33:24 AM5/6/12
to
So what in your opinion makes it real??????
I'd be interested to hear that!
cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > <snip>
Caligari
May 6, 2012, 11:33:19 AM5/6/12
to
On May 6, 12:33 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 2:38 am, Caligari <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 8:48 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 9:58 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 5, 7:04 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Friday, May 4, 2012 2:45:01 PM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> > > > > > On May 4, 11:27 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, May 4, 2012 3:31:05 AM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> On May 6, 2:38 am, Caligari <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 8:48 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 9:58 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 5, 7:04 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Friday, May 4, 2012 2:45:01 PM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> > > > > > On May 4, 11:27 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, May 4, 2012 3:31:05 AM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
perception and conceptualization of reality. This is a irreducible
given, a priori, obvious. Human beings can choose to evade, deny and
try to convince others to not engage with reality.
-- Caligari
> > > > > > > > > > <snip>
Sinead (Author)
May 6, 2012, 12:32:23 PM5/6/12
to
> Nothing makes reality. Reality exists as itself as are human
> perception and conceptualization of reality. This is a irreducible
> given, a priori, obvious. Human beings can choose to evade, deny and
> try to convince others to not engage with reality.
>
> -- Caligari
What makes what you said an evident, final, inarguable,
incontestable, incontrovertible, indisputable, indubitable,
irrefutable, obvious, proven, set, sure, unquestionable fact?
Seems to me that all that is going on here is that you assign
considerable value to your opinion and the people who share your
opinion's opinion. To me you sound like those religious
fundamentalists, terrorists and other zealots.
Caligari
May 6, 2012, 12:46:42 PM5/6/12
to
On May 6, 9:32 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadauthori...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Ad hominem attacks or refuting an argument with a personal attack is
used when someone doesn't have a worthwhile response.
-- Caligari
wrote:
used when someone doesn't have a worthwhile response.
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
May 6, 2012, 3:15:23 PM5/6/12
to
> Ad hominem attacks or refuting an argument with a personal attack is
> used when someone doesn't have a worthwhile response.
>
> -- Caligari
or refuting an argument with a personal attack" because you don't
have a worthwhile response. Looks to me like you have nothing to
back up the personal opinions you expressed Caligari, as usual.
Yourself and Rick Ross often exit a discussion resorting this tactic
to avoid backing up your words, calling other "trolls" "apologists"
and using "ad hominem attacks" , and banning" in Rick's case, to avoid
and get out of participating in discussion that you do not agree with.
The question was: "Specifically, what makes what you said true
Caligari?"
"religious fundamentalists, terrorists and other zealots" are the
people who come to mind when I think of groups and individuals who
attempt to enforce their "real" "reality" on others. There was no
personal attack on you.
Caligari
May 6, 2012, 3:21:00 PM5/6/12
to
On May 6, 12:15 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Then you would make science educators "terrorists" and "zealots" for
stating that only evolution belongs in science class and intelligent
design is not science. It is as much a personal attack as religious
fundamentalists attacking science teachers that insist on an
observable, knowable reality that is not based on the whim of
agreement.
-- Caligari
wrote:
stating that only evolution belongs in science class and intelligent
design is not science. It is as much a personal attack as religious
fundamentalists attacking science teachers that insist on an
observable, knowable reality that is not based on the whim of
agreement.
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
May 6, 2012, 3:49:10 PM5/6/12
to
> Then you would make science educators "terrorists" and "zealots" for
> stating that only evolution belongs in science class and intelligent
> design is not science. It is as much a personal attack as religious
> fundamentalists attacking science teachers that insist on an
> observable, knowable reality that is not based on the whim of
> agreement.
>
> -- Caligari
It could be helpful if you provided evidence or one example of any
> stating that only evolution belongs in science class and intelligent
> design is not science. It is as much a personal attack as religious
> fundamentalists attacking science teachers that insist on an
> observable, knowable reality that is not based on the whim of
> agreement.
>
> -- Caligari
"science educators " or "science teachers" arguing that something or
anything IS irreducibly,
obviously "real", a "given, a priori", in the exact same the way as
you are arguing for here in alt.fan.landmark.
Caligari
May 6, 2012, 4:02:48 PM5/6/12
to
On May 6, 12:49 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It would help if you didn't use semantics to argue against what is
self-evident about science. But then the sophistry of semantic hair-
splitting is the method of Werner est and probably LEC, so it's to be
expected.
-- Caligari
wrote:
self-evident about science. But then the sophistry of semantic hair-
splitting is the method of Werner est and probably LEC, so it's to be
expected.
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
May 6, 2012, 4:15:54 PM5/6/12
to
> It would help if you didn't use semantics to argue against what is
> self-evident about science. But then the sophistry of semantic hair-
> splitting is the method of Werner est and probably LEC, so it's to be
> expected.
>
> -- Caligari
Caligari. Like I thought, you have nothing but your opinions and will
not admit that.
Feel free to provide evidence or one example of any "science
educators" or "science teachers" arguing that something or anything
IS irreducibly, obviously "real", a "given, a priori", in the exact
same the way as you are arguing for here in alt.fan.landmark, if and
IS irreducibly, obviously "real", a "given, a priori", in the exact
when you are moved to back up any one of your opinions.
Caligari
May 6, 2012, 5:51:41 PM5/6/12
to
accepting platitudes based on how much agreement they garner or how
forcefully they are sold. If that makes you consider me similar to
"religious fundamentalists, terrorists and other zealots", that is
your problem not mine.
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
May 6, 2012, 6:33:41 PM5/6/12
to
> Yes, I value what I've rationally determined rather than just
> accepting platitudes based on how much agreement they garner or how
> forcefully they are sold. If that makes you consider me similar to
> "religious fundamentalists, terrorists and other zealots", that is
> your problem not mine.
>
> -- Caligari
for saying your opinion.
That you think that your opinions are the true real ones and that all
people must abide by your opinion and anyone who does not is guilty of
spreading or "accepting platitudes" does make you similar to
"religious fundamentalists, terrorists and other zealots" in my view,
yes.
Tex
May 6, 2012, 6:58:01 PM5/6/12
to
So you said this, a couple of days ago.
That is what Werner and the est Training claims to be real or true,
experience not an external reality knowable through reason.
Then the question is what is this reality or truth of "experience"?
I think your question, although interesting, is based on a false premise regarding what Werner claims.
It is more like this.
Check out this color blindness test and tell me what you see.
What is your reality?
I can tell you mine, and although the objective reality is the same, the reality of what we "see" may be very different.
http://colorvisiontesting.com/online%20test.htm#demonstration card
What is reality?
Two people will see different things viewing the same "reality."
Sinead (Author)
May 6, 2012, 7:07:31 PM5/6/12
to
> Yes, I value what I've rationally determined rather than just
> accepting platitudes based on how much agreement they garner or how
> forcefully they are sold. If that makes you consider me similar to
> "religious fundamentalists, terrorists and other zealots", that is
> your problem not mine.
>
> -- Caligari
Anthony was guilty based on Nancy Grace's personal rational
determination of the "facts" that were available to her. No story
there, yeah right. Nancy Grace was dealing with "reality" and accused
everyone else of "sugar coating" as you said choosing "to evade, deny
and try to convince others to not engage with reality". This was
before and after the outcome of the trial. To Grace it was "obvious"
"real", a "given, a priori" that this person was guilty and should be
punished as a murderer of a child.
Tex
May 6, 2012, 9:42:33 PM5/6/12
to
No need for due process, innocent until proven guilty etc.
Ellen thinks some things are ~obvious~ also.
Enric, you still haven't given us your color blindness test results.
What's the matter?
Afraid of the discussion?
To some of this, it is obvious. ;)
Sinead (Author)
May 6, 2012, 10:27:37 PM5/6/12
to
Caligari said:
"Nothing makes reality. Reality exists as itself as are human
perception and conceptualization of reality. This is a irreducible
given, a priori, obvious. Human beings can choose to evade, deny and
"Nothing makes reality. Reality exists as itself as are human
perception and conceptualization of reality. This is a irreducible
try to convince others to not engage with reality.
-- Caligari"
I asked:
Caligari
May 6, 2012, 10:36:20 PM5/6/12
to
> What is reality?
> Two people will see different things viewing the same "reality."
perceiving light. That is part of objective reality. Experience is
the mind perceiving through senses. This is the capability of animals
-- they are mainly limited to the perception of senses. Humans have a
more advanced prefrontal cortex allowing them to reason to create
tools to increase senses and physical capabilities:
*Glasses, microscopes, etc. to perception from their eyes,
*Cars, planes, etc. to physical motion with their legs,
*Hearing aids to ears,
*Telephone, megaphone, etc. to voice
and so forth.
When the est Trainer states, "only real thing is your experience", and
Werner in the interview says, “Godammit, Susie, your seeing Werner is
happening where Werner is.”, the reference of what is real as the
limited, faulty perception. In comparison when Werner says,
“You do see me, do you not? Where is Lucy-seeing-Werner happening?”
On the back of my retina, I say. He shakes his head.
“What you told me is your theory about seeing. I want to know where
you seeing Werner is happening. Point.”
to know reality has been reversed to a limited, faulty sense
perception with convincing that reality is not known through reason.
Whereas reason allows us to know reality beyond our perceptual limits
such as color blindness. If your aim is to have people be sold on
irrational claims, repeat them to others and take on unreasonable
commitments, it's an advantage to convince them to abandon their
reason.
-- Caligari
Tex
May 7, 2012, 12:02:21 AM5/7/12
to
That is your reality.
No matter how long I stare at the image, I never see what you see.
That is my reality.
No matter how long you look at Werner, Werner appears where he is.
It is nothing more complicated than that.
You are making a straw man Cal.
You just didn't understand the very simple premise presented.
Your experience is your reality.
It is not rejecting objective reality.
And what we view as objective reality changes as we discover more and more about the universe.
This info and 3.50 will get you a cappuccino.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Caligari
May 7, 2012, 12:18:06 AM5/7/12
to
It's been gorgeous, warm weather in the SF Bay Area lately, btw.
-- C
tubby
May 7, 2012, 5:38:37 AM5/7/12
to
and on what criteria it becomes objective reality.
So what makes your Objective reality any better than someone else's .
Just wondering where the erudite Muse is when we need her. Could she
also have a better explanation
of what she means by reality!!!!!
cheers Bruno
Serena Nordstrup
May 7, 2012, 6:38:32 AM5/7/12
to
pontificates about "reality", we could discuss the importance of her
~word~...
> cheers Bruno
Tex
May 7, 2012, 6:14:39 AM5/7/12
to
Sinead (Author)
May 7, 2012, 7:31:42 AM5/7/12
to
what is self-evident about science" nor the "Werner est and probably
LEC" "method" of "sophistry of semantic hair- splitting" against
Caligari.
tubby
May 7, 2012, 10:56:15 AM5/7/12
to
which just may flush her out of her androgynous world.
Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > cheers Bruno
Caligari
May 7, 2012, 2:21:16 PM5/7/12
to
There are many interesting philosophical and logical articles on this
if you search; Google is a popular search tool.
-- Caligari
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sinead (Author)
May 7, 2012, 4:27:15 PM5/7/12
to
> Objective reality is that objects exist independent of the mind.
What makes what you are saying here the absolute unquestionable Truth
and factual Caligari?
> There are many interesting philosophical and logical articles on this if you search; Google is a popular search tool.
> -- Caligari
and the current notions that you and *some* people agree on?
Serena Nordstrup
May 8, 2012, 3:49:59 AM5/8/12
to
Muses pontificated about "reality", Bruno ?
I find that amazing.
tubby
May 8, 2012, 4:13:08 AM5/8/12
to
So back to the question,
What is reality to you,
Lets start with Objective reality
cheers????
tubby
May 8, 2012, 9:04:27 AM5/8/12
to
How do you know that.
What criteria do you use?????
Not interested in logical theories but interested in how you work out
what is real for you.
For example when you first joined EST that must have felt real for you
and you went for it.
What"s the difference now.
What made you see through that reality which you took as truth
suddenly become meaningless.
Agreement must be an important factor at least to explain how humans
interact with each other
when confronting reality, especially a reality with so many twists and
turns.
Cheers Bruno
Message has been deleted
Caligari
May 8, 2012, 10:00:40 AM5/8/12
to
>
> Not interested in logical theories but interested in how you work out
> what is real for you.
>
> For example when you first joined EST that must have felt real for you
> and you went for it.
> What"s the difference now.
> What made you see through that reality which you took as truth
> suddenly become meaningless.
>
> Agreement must be an important factor at least to explain how humans
> interact with each other
> when confronting reality, especially a reality with so many twists and
> turns.
they're known for in their field. That does not absolve us from the
responsibility of using our reason to test their assertions on the
subject when opportunity arises.
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
May 8, 2012, 10:04:41 AM5/8/12
to
> By testing out claims in est and finding them false.
So every single person who claims that they "tested out" "claims in
est" were and are lying to themselves and to others or hypnotized or
duped or some other Caligarian Rossian, Serenian explanation for
making false "claims" but not you you see reality?
Maybe you chose to have it be "false" for just you just as you chose
to have be not false for a time?
Sinead (Author)
May 8, 2012, 10:13:24 AM5/8/12
to
Caligari, seems to me that you want to project your moment to
moment personal conclusions onto est and Erhard as realities so as to
not be responsible for your choices in your life. How conveninet for
you?
If you have some conclusive evidence, scientific peer reviewed studies
or facts that est in fact made "false claims", feel free to unload
them all here and everyone will discuss those facts. Till that time
it is just one man's (yours) opinion against others opinions..
moment personal conclusions onto est and Erhard as realities so as to
not be responsible for your choices in your life. How conveninet for
you?
If you have some conclusive evidence, scientific peer reviewed studies
or facts that est in fact made "false claims", feel free to unload
them all here and everyone will discuss those facts. Till that time
it is just one man's (yours) opinion against others opinions..
Tex
May 8, 2012, 10:46:14 AM5/8/12
to
HE is entitled to that.
He prefers the Randian view regarding reality.
So this is at odds with some of the things said in est/Landmark.
My contention is that they are not at odds with each other, but deal with two aspects of our existence.
The name "Objectivism" derives from the idea that human knowledge and values are objective: they exist and are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by one's mind, and are not created by the thoughts one has.[3] Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence—"existentialism"—had already been taken.
Sinead (Author)
May 8, 2012, 1:20:53 PM5/8/12
to
their musings till the cows come home. But Caligari appears to me to
be wants to be saying that what he is in touch with reality and others
are not, that what he is saying is factual and real and he is just
reporting on real things, real false claims , real whatever.
Is that not what jihadists and radicals and fundamentalists do?
Attempt to force their point of view on all people and negate all
other points of views as false and declare anyone not on side, "fair
game" and deserving of any any response from the true believers in
anti-(fill in the blank) who have their God ( in Caligari's case,
reality) on their side?
And any who do not agree MUST be shilling, trolling, apologizing,
paid, brainwashed, dupes, employees etc.
Caligari
May 8, 2012, 3:54:57 PM5/8/12
to
bright,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cirne/7147360089/in/photostream
;)
Tex
May 9, 2012, 1:20:12 AM5/9/12
to
Miss the Bay area.
Tex
May 9, 2012, 1:19:17 AM5/9/12
to
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 1:20:53 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> On May 8, 10:46 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 10:13:24 AM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > > Caligari, seems to me that you want to project your moment to
> > > moment personal conclusions onto est and Erhard as realities so as to
> > > not be responsible for your choices in your life. How conveninet for
> > > you?
> >
> > > If you have some conclusive evidence, scientific peer reviewed studies
> > > or facts that est in fact made "false claims", feel free to unload
> > > them all here and everyone will discuss those facts. Till that time
> > > it is just one man's (yours) opinion against others opinions..
> >
> > It is his subjective musings.
> > HE is entitled to that.
> > He prefers the Randian view regarding reality.
> >
> > So this is at odds with some of the things said in est/Landmark.
> >
> > My contention is that they are not at odds with each other, but deal with two aspects of our existence.
> >
> > The name "Objectivism" derives from the idea that human knowledge and values are objective: they exist and are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by one's mind, and are not created by the thoughts one has.[3] Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence—"existentialism"—had already been taken.
>
> Yes, I would say that Caligari and Ellen and Rick are entitled to
> their musings till the cows come home. But Caligari appears to me to
> be wants to be saying that what he is in touch with reality and others
> are not, that what he is saying is factual and real and he is just
> reporting on real things, real false claims , real whatever.
This is common among Objectivists, although he asserts he is not one of them.
> On May 8, 10:46 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 10:13:24 AM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > > Caligari, seems to me that you want to project your moment to
> > > moment personal conclusions onto est and Erhard as realities so as to
> > > not be responsible for your choices in your life. How conveninet for
> > > you?
> >
> > > If you have some conclusive evidence, scientific peer reviewed studies
> > > or facts that est in fact made "false claims", feel free to unload
> > > them all here and everyone will discuss those facts. Till that time
> > > it is just one man's (yours) opinion against others opinions..
> >
> > It is his subjective musings.
> > HE is entitled to that.
> > He prefers the Randian view regarding reality.
> >
> > So this is at odds with some of the things said in est/Landmark.
> >
> > My contention is that they are not at odds with each other, but deal with two aspects of our existence.
> >
> > The name "Objectivism" derives from the idea that human knowledge and values are objective: they exist and are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by one's mind, and are not created by the thoughts one has.[3] Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence—"existentialism"—had already been taken.
>
> Yes, I would say that Caligari and Ellen and Rick are entitled to
> their musings till the cows come home. But Caligari appears to me to
> be wants to be saying that what he is in touch with reality and others
> are not, that what he is saying is factual and real and he is just
> reporting on real things, real false claims , real whatever.
He sometimes talks like one.
It's a Objectivist, Aristotelean view good.... anyone else is a solipsistic subjectivist.
Labeling help some people. :)
It helps to narrow the playing field.
Serena Nordstrup
May 9, 2012, 7:27:33 AM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 2:04 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > By testing out claims in est and finding them false.
>
> So every single person who claims that they "tested out" "claims in
> est"
Every single person? Every one?
> > By testing out claims in est and finding them false.
>
> So every single person who claims that they "tested out" "claims in
> est"
> were and are lying to themselves and to others or hypnotized or
> duped or some other Caligarian Rossian, Serenian explanation for
> making false "claims"
> but not you you see reality?
>
> Maybe you chose to have it be "false" for just you just as you chose
> to have be not false for a time?
Sinead (Author)
May 9, 2012, 8:56:47 AM5/9/12
to
it?
Caligari
May 9, 2012, 1:47:10 PM5/9/12
to
away from the Earth. And people really use the word "supermoon" which
is easier to say than "perigee-syzygy of the Earth-Moon-Sun system."
============
7 May, 2012 1:33PM AEST
Supermoon captivates photographers
By Samantha Turnbull
Last night's 'supermoon' captivated photographers across the world,
including on the New South Wales north coast.
Astronomers say the moon was the closest it will be to Earth this
year, at 356,955km away which is 24,600km closer than average.
The technical term for the phenomenon is the 'perigee-syzygy of the
Earth-Moon-Sun system'.
============
http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2012/05/07/3497143.htm
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/supermoon-lights-up-the-night-sky/story-fn5fsgyc-1226348406554
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/look-up-in-the-sky-its-supermoon/story-fn7x8me2-1226348337254
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
May 9, 2012, 3:09:28 PM5/9/12
to
> Yes it was really a supermoon
> or the moon really was about 356,955km away from the Earth.
it the Earth is 356,955km away from the moon?
> And people really use the word "supermoon"
> which is easier to say than "perigee-syzygy of the Earth-Moon-Sun system."
have a capacity for astronomy and the language of astronomy, is it
"easier" for them them as well?
Seems to me that you want to deny yourself and all others of the
right to invent and make stuff up and fabricate and create and freely
label and rename life as they see it in order to prove, to your last
breath, that you were a victim and that you were done to.
>
> ============
> 7 May, 2012 1:33PM AEST
> Supermoon captivates photographers
> By Samantha Turnbull
>
> Last night's 'supermoon' captivated photographers across the world,
> including on the New South Wales north coast.
> Astronomers say the moon was the closest it will be to Earth this
> year, at 356,955km away which is 24,600km closer than average.
> The technical term for the phenomenon is the 'perigee-syzygy of the
> Earth-Moon-Sun system'.
> ============
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2012/05/07/3497143.htm
>
>
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/look-up-in-the-sky-its-sup...
>
> -- Caligari
Caligari
May 9, 2012, 7:06:04 PM5/9/12
to
been down Valencia Street?
-- Caligari
Caligari
May 10, 2012, 6:59:40 PM5/10/12
to
On May 9, 12:09 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The facts are of borne out from reality independent of one's wishes.
> > And people really use the word "supermoon"
>
> "people" did? that is true?
Yes. I provided you with links to articles that used the words
"supermoon."
>
> > which is easier to say than "perigee-syzygy of the Earth-Moon-Sun system."
>
> Is it a fact that it is easier? what makes that true? For "people"who
> have a capacity for astronomy and the language of astronomy, is it
> "easier" for them them as well?
Implicit in that statement is "on average", you continue on hair
splitting words away from their common meaning.
>
> Seems to me that you want to deny yourself and all others of the
> right to invent and make stuff up and fabricate and create and freely
> label and rename life as they see it in order to prove, to your last
> breath, that you were a victim and that you were done to.
>
People are free to make up anything they want. But I will not
consider it intelligent when someone wants to believe that they can
wish a flying carpet to transport people rather than using
mathematics, physics and other science to engineer airplanes.
Werner's promotion of limited and faulty sense perception as "real"
and reason that accurately predicts reality as not "real" is a
ridiculous reversal of how reality is accurately known:
=========
“You have no idea what’s in there, woman!” Erhard jabs an angry finger
in my direction. “Godammit, Susie, your seeing Werner is happening
where Werner is.”
=========
-- Caligari
wrote:
> > Yes it was really a supermoon
>
> What makes that factually true?
The next statement: the moon really was about 356,955km away from the
>
> What makes that factually true?
Earth.
>
> > or the moon really was about 356,955km away from the Earth.
>
> What makes that factually true? Numbers were not just made up? Or is
> it the Earth is 356,955km away from the moon?
>
That is grade school arithmetic: |x - y| = |y - x|
>
> > or the moon really was about 356,955km away from the Earth.
>
> What makes that factually true? Numbers were not just made up? Or is
> it the Earth is 356,955km away from the moon?
>
The facts are of borne out from reality independent of one's wishes.
> > And people really use the word "supermoon"
>
> "people" did? that is true?
"supermoon."
>
> > which is easier to say than "perigee-syzygy of the Earth-Moon-Sun system."
>
> Is it a fact that it is easier? what makes that true? For "people"who
> have a capacity for astronomy and the language of astronomy, is it
> "easier" for them them as well?
splitting words away from their common meaning.
>
> Seems to me that you want to deny yourself and all others of the
> right to invent and make stuff up and fabricate and create and freely
> label and rename life as they see it in order to prove, to your last
> breath, that you were a victim and that you were done to.
>
consider it intelligent when someone wants to believe that they can
wish a flying carpet to transport people rather than using
mathematics, physics and other science to engineer airplanes.
Werner's promotion of limited and faulty sense perception as "real"
and reason that accurately predicts reality as not "real" is a
ridiculous reversal of how reality is accurately known:
=========
“You do see me, do you not? Where is Lucy-seeing-Werner happening?”
On the back of my retina, I say. He shakes his head.
“What you told me is your theory about seeing. I want to know where
you seeing Werner is happening. Point.”
I duly point to my brain.
On the back of my retina, I say. He shakes his head.
“What you told me is your theory about seeing. I want to know where
you seeing Werner is happening. Point.”
“You have no idea what’s in there, woman!” Erhard jabs an angry finger
in my direction. “Godammit, Susie, your seeing Werner is happening
where Werner is.”
=========
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
May 10, 2012, 8:23:07 PM5/10/12
to
Tex
May 11, 2012, 7:23:20 AM5/11/12
to
http://colorvisiontesting.com/ishihara.htm
Take the above test.
My "reality" is different than yours.
Also, the moon looks larger on the horizon.
Do you know why?
Valencia street.
Is there a funky restaurant down there that also shows foreign films while you eat?
Sinead (Author)
May 11, 2012, 8:18:46 AM5/11/12
to
the blind photographer character in Jocelyn Moorhouse's 1991 film
"Proof" with hugo Weaving and Russel Crowe about a character who is
desperately trying to prove and be right about his perceived
victimhood. I found it to be a very sad and moving film.
Caligari is a very interesting tragic little character in a similiar
way. He will "reason" to his grave, to anyone who will listen, and
preferably agree (on the internet) , using all his intellectual
capacities, that he was in fact a real victim and the people who
victimized him and did it to him. Cal will ignore all info or facts
and use tunnel vision to argue he is right and all others are duped or
apologists and talk about " flying carpets" and "ridiculous reversals
of how reality is accurately known" and on and on, to convince himself
he must be right and others must be duped, wrong or lying or fooling
themselves or must be uneducated on the topic and not using their
reason.
tubby
May 11, 2012, 9:08:44 AM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 10:18 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
Hi Sinead,
I can't understand your focused attack on Caligari in regards to his
position whilst in Est.
I think I can understand his bitterness ( My words) having given some
of his best years to the
Organisation and then most probably when he dared question some
Actions of the Organisation
he was primarily told he could leave as he did not believe in the
policies any more.
Caligari to my knowledge has never spilt any dirt on the Inner Sanctum
of the Organisation , but
mainly has criticised the Philosphy or actions of Wernen and crowd.
So I'm curious why you are going after him so personally????
I've had my disagreements with Caligari and am frustrated when I feel
he avoids my questions on Objective
reality, however I respect his stand as it is he who caught up with
Werner and crowd and gave them so much
time in exchange to not enough rewards, acknowledgement and most
probably waking up to the fact that Werner had feet of clay
and wasn't the prophet he was led to believe he was.
So I'm curious to ask you did you know Caligari in the past and is
this a payback to some past misunderstanding>??
I do enjoy your perceptive posts and appreciate your time spent here.
Regards
bruno
I can't understand your focused attack on Caligari in regards to his
position whilst in Est.
I think I can understand his bitterness ( My words) having given some
of his best years to the
Organisation and then most probably when he dared question some
Actions of the Organisation
he was primarily told he could leave as he did not believe in the
policies any more.
Caligari to my knowledge has never spilt any dirt on the Inner Sanctum
of the Organisation , but
mainly has criticised the Philosphy or actions of Wernen and crowd.
So I'm curious why you are going after him so personally????
I've had my disagreements with Caligari and am frustrated when I feel
he avoids my questions on Objective
reality, however I respect his stand as it is he who caught up with
Werner and crowd and gave them so much
time in exchange to not enough rewards, acknowledgement and most
probably waking up to the fact that Werner had feet of clay
and wasn't the prophet he was led to believe he was.
So I'm curious to ask you did you know Caligari in the past and is
this a payback to some past misunderstanding>??
I do enjoy your perceptive posts and appreciate your time spent here.
Regards
bruno
Sinead (Author)
May 11, 2012, 9:24:34 AM5/11/12
to
> Hi Sinead,
>
> I can't understand your focused attack on Caligari in regards to his
> position whilst in Est.
people ambush, undermine, one-up and thwart each other one way or the
other , this is not a polite friendly tea party nor an actual "fan"
page nor a "discussion". Whether it is all done with a knowing smiley
face ";-)" , wit or a 2.4 - it is all the same thing. Passive
aggressive or outright openly hostile, same thing. Peppering posts
with lots of "LOL's or "rofl's" - it is all the same.
> I think I can understand his bitterness ( My words) having given some
> of his best years to the
> Organisation and then most probably when he dared question some
> Actions of the Organisation
> he was primarily told he could leave as he did not believe in the
> policies any more.
> Caligari to my knowledge has never spilt any dirt on the Inner Sanctum
> of the Organisation ,
> but mainly has criticised the Philosphy or actions of Wernen and crowd.
>
> So I'm curious why you are going after him so personally????
>
> I've had my disagreements with Caligari and am frustrated when I feel
> he avoids my questions on Objective
> reality, however I respect his stand as it is he who caught up with
> Werner and crowd and gave them so much
> time in exchange to not enough rewards, acknowledgement and most
> probably waking up to the fact that Werner had feet of clay
> and wasn't the prophet he was led to believe he was.
> So I'm curious to ask you did you know Caligari in the past and is
> this a payback to some past misunderstanding>??
Caligari
May 11, 2012, 12:35:09 PM5/11/12
to
fun spot, I've stopped there a few times. If you have the time and
inclination, walk down Valencia Street between 16th and 24th streets.
I think you'll enjoy the shops and scene.
-- Caligari
Message has been deleted
Caligari
May 16, 2012, 2:56:04 PM5/16/12
to
question and challenge the ideas in est and was completing all the
agreements I
had and not renewing them. The first one was at an office est had on
Laguna Street where I was teaching other assistants to use Wordstar
software on their CPM network. After I left I got several calls from
assistant managers to come back even though I asked to not be called
-- est had a policy to not call someone if they requested to not be
contacted. The last connection I had to an est related organization
was a job I interviewed and got at the Hunger Project around 1984. I
got the job but decided to take a job I got at The Sharper Image
instead which made the person who hired me at the Hunger Project a bit
pissed off at me for not taking his offer.
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
May 16, 2012, 3:48:29 PM5/16/12
to
> Just to be clear, I was not told I could leave. I started to
> question and challenge the ideas in est and was completing all the
> agreements I
> had and not renewing them. The first one was at an office est had on
> Laguna Street where I was teaching other assistants to use Wordstar
> software on their CPM network. After I left I got several calls from
> assistant managers to come back even though I asked to not be called
> -- est had a policy to not call someone if they requested to not be
> contacted. The last connection I had to an est related organization
> was a job I interviewed and got at the Hunger Project around 1984. I
> got the job but decided to take a job I got at The Sharper Image
> instead which made the person who hired me at the Hunger Project a bit
> pissed off at me for not taking his offer.
>
> -- Caligari
assisting and the moment to stop assisting. This is what they all have
in common. They are attracted to something about it and enter, let
themselves be held there by their attraction for a certain time and
then let themselves be released from their attraction after a certain
time. This is how it goes for people doing anything. Romantic
relationships, jobs, spiritual paths, hobbies, homes, etc. People
choose where they will be and for how long. And then they add a good
story to it to explain why they left or stopped something.
When people choose to leave a relationship or a marriage, they rarely
just leave it, they almost always attach some unflattering name or
quality to the other person or even to themselves.
Tex
May 16, 2012, 9:00:42 PM5/16/12
to
A lot of people, including me, left est with a sour taste in our mouths.
There are many accounts of this.
Many who became heavily involved have had this experience.
Trying to discount Cal or my "story" is simply rationalizing or trying to minimize our experience of it. Staff members often have a much worse story.
One can't discount what was obvious, at least in my day.
There were absolutely manipulative tactics used by assistants and staff to get people to do things. (Out integrity blah, blah, blah)
Cal was very young. (teens and early 20s).
he should have been concentrating on his studies, not working for free for est. That would have served him more.
Yes, he could have walked away. He was committed to a "world that works for everyone," though. ;)
Polarized positions regarding est/landmark don't allow for reasoned conversation on the topic.
OK, welcome to AFL, for the lurkers.
There actually is a middle ground.
Caligari
May 16, 2012, 9:32:24 PM5/16/12
to
meaningful (and meaningless) College relationships...
>
> Yes, he could have walked away. He was committed to a "world that works for everyone," though. ;)
>
> Polarized positions regarding est/landmark don't allow for reasoned conversation on the topic.
-- C
Sinead (Author)
May 16, 2012, 11:34:16 PM5/16/12
to
> But people leave jobs, schools etc. and it doesn't have to be that way.
a situation in a one sided way that serves their survival and self-
interest and more often than not portray others as the villain.
> A lot of people, including me, left est with a sour taste in our mouths.
sour taste in my mouth, as recent as this week.
> There are many accounts of this.
life.
> Many who became heavily involved have had this experience.
to do with est.
> Trying to discount Cal or my "story" is simply rationalizing or trying to minimize our experience of it.
> Staff members often have a much worse story.
This is true of a million other endeavours. Ask the millions of
Americans losing their jobs over the last 6 years. They gave
everything and in the end felt lied to ripped off and cats aside. est
staff is like being on staff at any job when it comes to unhappy
endings, no worse no better.
> One can't discount what was obvious, at least in my day.
> There were absolutely manipulative tactics used by assistants and staff to get people to do things. (Out integrity blah, blah, blah)
is his magic carpet ride away from any responsibility for his life
choices. It is plausible and I could go along with it but I find it
destructive and it hinders me from having a great existence if I take
that particular point of view too far for too long.
> Cal was very young. (teens and early 20s).
> he should have been concentrating on his studies, not working for free for est. That would have served him more.
doing now that he would love to do, that he is not doing, that he
cannot blame est on, that instead he blames his age on or some other
plausible sellable explanation.
> Yes, he could have walked away. He was committed to a "world that works for everyone," though. ;)
take but to each their own. Caligari chooses not to put his emphasis
there.
> Polarized positions regarding est/landmark don't allow for reasoned conversation on the topic.
The main players have been regurgitating the same gobbledygook for
years.
> OK, welcome to AFL, for the lurkers.
> There actually is a middle ground.
a rich and complex topic but I do not see alt.fan.landmark as a place
for that. Mostly Caligari and Co. are here to hit and run and hijack
and troll any views that do not agree with theirs and Ross's.
Sinead (Author)
May 16, 2012, 11:36:17 PM5/16/12
to
> And going out with friends, roommates and gals ;) -- time for
> meaningful (and meaningless) College relationships...
a player now Caliagri. SF is famous for it's PUA's no est to get in
your way.
Ben Lewis
May 16, 2012, 11:41:55 PM5/16/12
to
in est because I had other things I wanted to do with my time.
Assisting agreements were starting to get in the way of things I
needed lots of free time to do, i.e.. whitewater rafting/ kayaking,
skiing, new sweetheart, international travel. etc. etc. I assisted on
Werner's yachts every Sunday for four years. While it was a great
experience, it sure limited other activities. For instance, rafting
the Grand Canyon is a three week commitment! Overseas travel takes a
lot of time. While I had a few minor upsets with est, they were not
the reason I eased out. It was simply time to wrap it up and move on
to new and exciting activities. Which I still am doing.
ben-estie
Message has been deleted
Caligari
May 17, 2012, 1:00:12 AM5/17/12
to
On May 16, 8:36 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
-- Caligari
wrote:
> > And going out with friends, roommates and gals ;) -- time for
> > meaningful (and meaningless) College relationships...
>
> It is never too late for gals and meaninglessness. You could be being
> a player now Caliagri. SF is famous for it's PUA's no est to get in
> your way.
>
>
This is how evil reads like.
> > meaningful (and meaningless) College relationships...
>
> It is never too late for gals and meaninglessness. You could be being
> a player now Caliagri. SF is famous for it's PUA's no est to get in
> your way.
>
>
-- Caligari
Sinead (Author)
May 17, 2012, 7:19:32 AM5/17/12
to
> This is how evil reads like.
>
> -- Caligari
give him your mind, your body and your soul and u will be just fine.
Let go your heart. Let go your head. And feel it now.
Patrick"
Caligari
May 17, 2012, 8:38:50 AM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 4:19 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Still don't think this is a troll for LEC and Werner coming in with
different nicknames? This person, using an anonymizer or proxy to
mask their location, has one aim: to disrupt and antagonize anyone who
disagrees in any manner with LEC or Werner.
-- Caligari
wrote:
different nicknames? This person, using an anonymizer or proxy to
mask their location, has one aim: to disrupt and antagonize anyone who
disagrees in any manner with LEC or Werner.
-- Caligari
tubby
May 17, 2012, 9:34:15 AM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 1:36 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
or acknowledging the bitterness (my words)
that Caligari may have to an organisation that promised "A world that
works for everyone"
By the way Sinead can you tell us what your experience with the
organisation was???
Just to maybe understand where you are coming from in your viewpoints
here.
Regards
bruno
wrote:
> > And going out with friends, roommates and gals ;) -- time for
> > meaningful (and meaningless) College relationships...
>
> It is never too late for gals and meaninglessness. You could be being
> a player now Caliagri. SF is famous for it's PUA's no est to get in
> your way.
He could be too, but that still does not stop any of us recognising
> > meaningful (and meaningless) College relationships...
>
> It is never too late for gals and meaninglessness. You could be being
> a player now Caliagri. SF is famous for it's PUA's no est to get in
> your way.
or acknowledging the bitterness (my words)
that Caligari may have to an organisation that promised "A world that
works for everyone"
By the way Sinead can you tell us what your experience with the
organisation was???
Just to maybe understand where you are coming from in your viewpoints
here.
Regards
bruno
Sinead (Author)
May 17, 2012, 2:59:41 PM5/17/12
to
> Still don't think this is a troll for LEC and Werner coming in with
> different nicknames? This person, using an anonymizer or proxy to
> mask their location, has one aim: to disrupt and antagonize anyone who
> disagrees in any manner with LEC or Werner.
>
> -- Caligari
to cast some question of identity on anyone who persisted in not
promoting your point of view. You have done it to Tex and others. You
do not raise an eyebrow when Ellen or [Patrick or Serena relentlessly
"disrupt and antagonize anyone who disagrees in any manner with their
criticism of LEC or Werner or who has anything positive to say. These
cast of trools even have went after Ben!!! This is a very old tactic
and it is see through.
Caligari you are a troll for the disenchanted and the cynical.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages