Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's life-story
premanandpaulmason
http://paulmason.info] is currently undergoing revision by the author
Paul Mason.
This book represents a colossal amount of work on my part, undertaken
in order to express the truth about MMY's life and thinking. However,
on trawling through the archives of the chat groups, it appears that
not everyone believes the biography to be wholly reliable or
'dependable'? What's the problem? I most certainly do not have an
'aggenda', I do not have affilliations with fundamentalist Christians
or with anyone with an 'issue' with MMY. In fact I didn't even intend
the biography to be critical, it just happened. I portrayed MMY as
human. Perhaps sometimes I even pointed out that some of his
statements, some of his proposals were a bit wonky and ill-considered.
But maybe it was the quotations? I made many of them from actual tape
recordings of MMY and I can quite categorically state that those are
totally authentic verbatim transcripts [despite whatever anyone might
say to the contrary, maybe some of the more contentious ones could be
made available to collecters as .wav or .mp3 files. Whatever].
I would welcome any fresh material which might throw new light on
MMY's life-story, especially the early years about which we know so
little. His guru Swami Brahmanand(a) Saraswati is, of course, of
fundamental interest and ANY material at all that you can share would
be very warmly received. I am particulary looking for any printed
books, booklets, photos, recordings of 'Guru Dev' and any new material
at all on MMY.
I can be emailed at preman...@yahoo.co.uk &, if the material
qualifies for any serious revision of the book, I will gladly give the
contributor a credit mention.
Bob Hopeless
"premanandpaulmason" <preman...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cac3a6d2.04101...@posting.google.com...
> I would welcome any fresh material which might throw new light on
> MMY's life-story, especially the early years about which we know so
> little.
One tiny point that may be of some slight interest: you mention Jabalpur as
MMY's 'hometown' and most people think it is, but Osho says this:
"Shri Harishankar Parsai has written an article against me. He knows me, he
knows me from my college days. He is the leading Hindi satirical writer. I
always respect his writing. In the article he writes: "There must be
something wrong with the atmosphere of Jabalpur. Here only swindlers and
charlatans are born -- like Osho, Mahesh Yogi and Munindra."
He listed three names. I must thank him that at least I am number one on his
list!
(...)
Now not only am I wrong, but because of me the very air of Jabalpur is
wrong! There must be something wrong in the environment. But I want to tell
him that Jabalpur has no power over me, whether the environment is good or
bad. I don't have much connection with Jabalpur; I was only there for a few
years. Mahesh Yogi was also there a few years; he also has no connection.
Both of us are connected with another place. The people of that place are so
sleepy that even now they don't know anything about us. Mahesh Yogi's and my
places of birth are very near to each other; both of us were born near
Gadawara. He was born in Chichli, I was born in Kuchwada. If the environment
is bad, it must be there. Gadawara should be suffering for it -- or
receiving the blessing. Jabalpur should not be dragged into this."
http://www.barnett.sk/software/sos/osho/osho-talks/enligh01.htm
Bob Hopeless
premanandpaulmason
> places of birth are very near to each other; both of us were born near
> Gadawara. He was born in Chichli, I was born in Kuchwada. If the environment
> is bad, it must be there. Gadawara should be suffering for it -- or
> receiving the blessing. Jabalpur should not be dragged into this."
> http://www.barnett.sk/software/sos/osho/osho-talks/enligh01.htm
>
> Bob Hopeless
Thank you Bob - incidentally, Swami Swaroopanand is also said to come
from Jabalpur. I will get right on the Chichli connection!!
Judy Stein
> The biography of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi [currently displayed on-line at
> http://paulmason.info] is currently undergoing revision by the author
> Paul Mason.
>
> This book represents a colossal amount of work on my part, undertaken
> in order to express the truth about MMY's life and thinking. However,
> on trawling through the archives of the chat groups, it appears that
> not everyone believes the biography to be wholly reliable or
> 'dependable'? What's the problem? I most certainly do not have an
> 'aggenda'
Oh, of course you have an agenda. I don't know whether your facts
are reliable or not, and I only looked at a couple of chapters, but
your tone is distinctly snarky.
premanandpaulmason
> are reliable or not, and I only looked at a couple of chapters, but
> your tone is distinctly snarky.
In the ten years since the book was first published you are the first
to present this criticism [about the tone of the writing]. Since this
is the only major biography of the Maharishi and the TM movement,
perhaps you might yet give the book a longer closer look. From the
little you have said I would guess that you were reading the latter
chapters. I must confess that it was sometimes difficult not to
express a little of my impatience at the unsubstanciated claims and
grandiose schemes that came up through the TMO. However, over all MMY
receives fair treatment and the aforementioned chapters should be seen
in context.
Judy Stein
> > are reliable or not, and I only looked at a couple of chapters, but
> > your tone is distinctly snarky.
>
> In the ten years since the book was first published you are the first
> to present this criticism [about the tone of the writing].
It isn't a criticism. You have a perfect right to write a snarky
biography of MMY. I'm just pointing out that it's disingenuous
to claim you don't have an agenda.
Since this
> is the only major biography of the Maharishi and the TM movement,
> perhaps you might yet give the book a longer closer look. From the
> little you have said I would guess that you were reading the latter
> chapters. I must confess that it was sometimes difficult not to
> express a little of my impatience at the unsubstanciated claims and
> grandiose schemes that came up through the TMO.
In other words: You have an agenda.
Bob Hopeless
"premanandpaulmason" <preman...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cac3a6d2.04101...@posting.google.com...
Paul,
Here is some more stuff from Osho:
"I was going to give you an example. The station was two miles from my town
and divides it from another small village called Cheechli, six miles away.
By the way, Cheechli was the birthplace of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He never
mentions it. There are reasons why he does not mention where he was born,
because he belongs to the sudra class in India. Just to mention that you
come from a certain village, certain caste, or profession -- and Indians are
very uncultured about that. They june just stop you on the road and ask you,
"What is your caste?" Nobody thinks that this is an interference.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was born on the other side of the station, but because
he is a sudra, he can neither mention the village -- because it is a village
of only sudras, the lowest caste in the Indian hierarchy -- nor can he use
his surname. That too will immediately reveal who he is.
His full name is Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava, but "Shrivastava" would put a
stop to all his pretensions, at least in India, and that would affect others
too. He is not an initiated sannyasin in any of the old orders, because
again, there are only ten sannyasin orders in India. I have been trying to
destroy them, that is why they are all angry with me.
These orders are again castes, but of sannyasins. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
cannot be a sannyasin because no sudra can become an initiate. That's why he
does not write "Swami" before his name. He cannot, nobody has given him that
name. He does not write behind his name, as Hindu sannyasins do, Bharti,
Saraswati, Giri et cetera; they have their ten names.
He has created his own name -- "Yogi." It does not mean anything. Anybody
trying to stand on his head, and of course falling again and again, can call
himself a yogi, there is no restriction on it.
A sudra can be a yogi, and the name Maharishi is something to replace
"Swami," because in India things are such that if the name "Swami" is
missing, then people would suspect something is wrong. You have to put
something else there just to cover up the gap.
He invented "Maharishi." He is not even a rishi; rishi means "seer," and
maharishi means "great seer." He can't even see beyond his nose. All he can
do when you ask him relevant questions is giggle. In fact, I will call him
"Swami Gigglananda," that will fit him perfectly. That giggling is not
something respectable, it is really a strategy to avoid questions. He cannot
answer any question.
I have met him, just by chance, and in a strange place -- Pahalgam. He was
leading a meditation camp there, and so was I. Naturally my people and his
were meeting each other. They first tried to bring him to my camp, but he
made so many excuses: that he had not time, he wanted to but it would not be
possible.
But he said, "One thing can be done: you can bring Bhagwan here so that my
time and my scheduled work is not disturbed. He can speak with me from my
stage." And they agreed.
When they told me I said, "This is stupid of you; now I will be in
unnecessary trouble. I will be in front of his crowd. I don't have to worry
about the questions; the only problem is that it will not be right for the
guest to hit his host, especially before his own crowd. And once I see him I
cannot refrain from hitting him; any decision I make not to hit him will be
gone."
But they said, "We have promised."
I said, "Okay. I'm not bothered, and I am ready to come." It was not very
far, just a two-minutes' walk away. You just had to get in the car, and then
get out again, that was the distance. So I said, "Okay, I will come."
I went there, and as I had expected he was not there. But I don't care about
anything; I started the camp -- and it was his camp! He was not there, he
was just trying to avoid me as much as he could. Somebody must have told him
because he was staying in the hotel just nearby. He must have heard what I
was saying from his room. I started hitting him hard, because when I saw
that he was not there, I could hit him as much as I wanted to, and enjoy
doing it. Perhaps I hit him too hard and he could not stay away. He came out
giggling.
I said, "Stop giggling! That is okay on American television, it won't do
here with me!" And his smile disappeared. I have never seen such anger. It
was as if that giggling was a curtain, hiding behind it all that was not
supposed to be there.
Naturally it was too much for him, and he said, "I have other things to do,
please excuse me."
I said, "There is no need. As far as I am concerned you never came here. You
came for the wrong reasons, and I don't come into it at all. But remember, I
have got plenty of time."
Then I really hit him because I knew he had gone back into his hotel room. I
could even see his face watching from the window. I even told his people:
"Look! This man says he has much work to do. Is this his work? Watching
somebody else work from his window. He should at least hide himself, just as
he hides behind his giggle."
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is the most cunning of all the so-called spiritual
gurus. But cunningness succeeds; nothing succeeds like cunningness. If you
fail, it simply means you have come across somebody who is more cunning than
you -- but cunningness still succeeds. He never mentions his village, but I
remembered because I was going to tell you about an incident. This incident
had some concern with his village, and my story is always going in all
directions."
http://www.oshoworld.com/onlinemag/june2004/htm/glimpses.asp
Bob Hopeless
premanandpaulmason
> biography of MMY. I'm just pointing out that it's disingenuous
> to claim you don't have an agenda.
>
> Since this
> > is the only major biography of the Maharishi and the TM movement,
> > perhaps you might yet give the book a longer closer look. From the
> > little you have said I would guess that you were reading the latter
> > chapters. I must confess that it was sometimes difficult not to
> > express a little of my impatience at the unsubstanciated claims and
> > grandiose schemes that came up through the TMO.
>
> In other words: You have an agenda.
Thank you for clarifying your point of view. Perhaps we just use this
word [agenda] with a different emphasis of meaning, based on local
usage (I have yet to visit the USA). When I wrote the book I attempted
to write a clear, honest account of MMY's life, and in so doing I
could not resist questioning the good sense of certain ideas and
actions.
If that is having an agenda, okay!
Uncle Tantra
> > > Oh, of course you have an agenda. I don't know whether your facts
> > > are reliable or not, and I only looked at a couple of chapters, but
> > > your tone is distinctly snarky.
> >
> > In the ten years since the book was first published you are the first
> > to present this criticism [about the tone of the writing].
Paul:
> It isn't a criticism. You have a perfect right to write a snarky
> biography of MMY. I'm just pointing out that it's disingenuous
> to claim you don't have an agenda.
> > Since this
> > is the only major biography of the Maharishi and the TM movement,
> > perhaps you might yet give the book a longer closer look. From the
> > little you have said I would guess that you were reading the latter
> > chapters. I must confess that it was sometimes difficult not to
> > express a little of my impatience at the unsubstanciated claims and
> > grandiose schemes that came up through the TMO.
> In other words: You have an agenda.
Your problem, Paul, is that you don't understand the definitions
being used here.
"Snarky," according to the Judy Dictionary, means "Any description
of things I identify with that is less respectful and fawning
and uncritical than the one I would write."
"Having an agenda," according to the same source, means "Any
attempt at honesty in writing that produces a description of
things I identify with that is less respectful and fawning and
uncritical than I would write."
The key phrase in both definitions, interestingly enough, is
"would write." Editors *don't* write; they merely criticize
those who do. You have to learn to read between the lines, to
see the deeper criticism within the surface criticism. What's
being said is, "Not *only* do I not agree with what you wrote
because it's not as good as what I would have written, I'm also
really, really, really pissed off that you actually wrote it,
while I just sat on my ass and criticized other people."
I'd take it as praise if I were you...
Unc
Uncle Tantra
comments, Paul, I haven't read your book. Neither has she.
She's read just enough to support the opinion she had before
she started reading, which is what she tends to do about
almost everything.
I honestly doubt I'll ever get around to reading it, for
a different reason -- the subject matter. I don't find
Maharishi all that interesting, and given the volume of
books currently on my reading list, yours is not likely
to ever rise to the top.
But given the reactions here, and your patient replies to
them, I'll give you an impression anyway. I suspect you
are on the right track with your biography.
Writing a book about a spiritual teacher with whom you have
personally studied is the most daunting task I can imagine.
And I don't have to imagine it...I've been there, done that
as well. There is *so* much pressure -- both internally
and externally -- to write What Everyone Wants To Hear.
Spiritual teachers are the poster children for projection.
Students project all their fantasies about enlightenment
and the enlightened onto them. Critics project all their
fantasies about charlatans and their fears about deception
onto them. In a very real sense, *no one* sees them with
clear eyes, as they are. They see them "filtered" through
their own experiences, their own hopes and dreams, their
own fears and fantasies.
In the spiritual canon, very few of the writers who were
tasked with writing about a spiritual teacher were up to
the task. They submitted to external pressure -- from the
teacher, from the other students -- to write What Everyone
Wants To Hear. Or they submitted to internal pressure and
wrote what they thought the teacher wanted to hear about
themselves. So, in my opinion, *most* of these books ring
false. They perpetuate the myths -- the fantasies -- of
enlightenment and spiritual teaching, rather than the
realities of it.
If you managed to avoid this trap, and used *honesty* as
your only guideline when writing, then you deserve a deep
bow from me. Being true to oneself in such a situation is
almost certainly the highest accomplishment one could hope
for. So if you feel that way about what you have written,
ignore the comments about 'snarky' and 'having an agenda.'
They come from snarky people with an agenda.
The hardest part of writing a book about a spiritual teacher
happens after you have finished it. You're just starting
that process now. It's a bitch, and I wish you well with
it. You may learn more from it than you did from the writing
itself.
If your intent was to be honest, and you pulled it off to
your satisfaction, then you succeeded where hundreds, perhaps
thousands, have failed in the past. Remember that success.
Many people are going to try to make you forget it, and make
you feel like shit for having the balls to do something they
were too afraid or too lazy to do themselves. They reveal
the poverty of their own minds by doing so, not yours.
Living well is the best revenge. Let them wallow in criticism.
Move on, and write something else. You won't miss them, and
it'll piss the critics off more than anything else you could
possibly do or say.
Unc
premanandpaulmason
next chapter of Osho's recollections? I want to know more about the
king of Cheechli!!
Judy Stein
Sure it is. The agenda is to call in question "the good sense of
certain ideas and actions." Or to be more blunt--and perhaps even
more honest--it's to suggest that certain ideas and actions are
not sensible.
Nothing wrong with doing that. A lot of us do the same.
BUT I have to say, it's entirely possible to do it, and do it
quite devastatingly, without being snarky. The snarkiness
communicates hostility and anger on your part, which works
against any impression you might want to convey that the book
is an objective account that's as free of personal bias as
you can make it.
And once the reader begins to realize your personal bias is
coloring the account, the reader's trust in its accuracy is
diminished, and they begin to wonder whether you may have
quoted selectively, or have provided all the relevant facts,
and so on. In other words, the snarkiness detracts from the
reader's impression of the book's reliability (at least if
what they were looking for was an objective account).
willytex
> > http://paulmason.info] is currently undergoing revision by the author
> > Paul Mason.
> >
> >
> > This book represents a colossal amount of work on my part, undertaken
> > in order to express the truth about MMY's life and thinking. However,
> > on trawling through the archives of the chat groups, it appears that
> > not everyone believes the biography to be wholly reliable or
> > 'dependable'? What's the problem? I most certainly do not have an
> > 'aggenda'
> >
> Oh, of course you have an agenda. I don't know whether your facts
> are reliable or not, and I only looked at a couple of chapters, but
> your tone is distinctly snarky.
Spoken like a true fundamentalist - you've definitely got an attitude!
First you tried to drive off all the good lookin' gals, now you want
to flame the only respondent who has any information about the TMO, so
no wonder you don't know whether the facts are accurate or not. I
can't believe that it's now 2005 and you are just getting around to
"looked at a couple of chapters". I must have posted at least a dozen
references to the biography by Mason in the past five years. Do you
have any comments to make on the book by Mason?
So you've got an agenda - what's up with that?
Judy Stein
> Judy:
> > > > Oh, of course you have an agenda. I don't know whether your facts
> > > > are reliable or not, and I only looked at a couple of chapters, but
> > > > your tone is distinctly snarky.
> > >
> > > In the ten years since the book was first published you are the first
> > > to present this criticism [about the tone of the writing].
>
> Paul:
> > It isn't a criticism. You have a perfect right to write a snarky
> > biography of MMY. I'm just pointing out that it's disingenuous
> > to claim you don't have an agenda.
>
> > > Since this
> > > is the only major biography of the Maharishi and the TM movement,
> > > perhaps you might yet give the book a longer closer look. From the
> > > little you have said I would guess that you were reading the latter
> > > chapters. I must confess that it was sometimes difficult not to
> > > express a little of my impatience at the unsubstanciated claims and
> > > grandiose schemes that came up through the TMO.
>
> > In other words: You have an agenda.
>
> Your problem, Paul, is that you don't understand the definitions
> being used here.
>
> "Snarky," according to the Judy Dictionary, means "Any description
> of things I identify with that is less respectful and fawning
> and uncritical than the one I would write."
In fact, by "snarky" I meant sarcastic and cynical. Barry
apparently thinks "snarky" is a putdown; it isn't.
> "Having an agenda," according to the same source, means "Any
> attempt at honesty in writing that produces a description of
> things I identify with that is less respectful and fawning and
> uncritical than I would write."
In fact, I'd be the last to suggest that when I write about
MMY, I don't have an agenda.
(Paul is at a bit of a disadvantage here, not being familiar with
my contributions to the newsgroup; he has no way of knowing Barry
is blatantly misrepresenting them. Barry'd have a hard time
coming up with anything I've written that could be characterized
as "fawning," and I could easily come up with many examples of
posts of mine that were disrespectful and/or highly critical.)
> The key phrase in both definitions, interestingly enough, is
> "would write."
"Would write" being Barry's phrase, not mine. Note that Barry is
arguing *from* his conclusion, not *to* his conclusion. That's
typical of Barry.
Editors *don't* write; they merely criticize
> those who do. You have to learn to read between the lines, to
> see the deeper criticism within the surface criticism. What's
> being said is, "Not *only* do I not agree with what you wrote
> because it's not as good as what I would have written, I'm also
> really, really, really pissed off that you actually wrote it,
> while I just sat on my ass and criticized other people."
Note that the definitions Barry provides are the products of his
vivid imagination and are not in accord with mine; what they
reveal between the lines is Barry's distress at my criticism of,
among many other things, some of his writing.
In fact, most of what I read of Paul's account, including the
snarkiness, I *do* agree with. And in fact I wasn't criticizing
his writing in the book at all, I was criticizing the claim in his
post not to have an agenda.
It's fine to have an agenda, but he shouldn't present the book
as agendaless if it isn't. If he wants the book to be received
as a thoroughly objective account, he needs to get rid of the
snarkiness. If he doesn't mind the reader knowing he has an
agenda, the snarkiness can stay in. But he has to make a choice,
and he ought to be honest about the choice he's made when he
describes the book.
Judy Stein
> Just to clarify the points I made later on about Judy's
> comments, Paul, I haven't read your book. Neither has she.
> She's read just enough to support the opinion she had before
> she started reading
<snicker> First note, again, that "snarky" is not an opinion
about the validity of the book, it's a characterization of the
tone of the writing, and it *isn't even a criticism*. My
criticism was of Paul's claim that he had no agenda.
Second, I had no opinion of the book before reading it; I knew
nothing about it other than what Paul himself had said in his
post. There he described it as "critical," and I was interested
in what kinds of criticism were involved.
I have always maintained on this newsgroup that there must be
*some* critics of TM and Maharishi who were fair and objective,
although none of them have yet shown up on this newsgroup. I
thought it was possible Paul was one of them, and I was hoping
he'd be someone I could point to in response to the assertions
of anti-TMers like Barry that committed TMers don't accept any
criticism of TM/MMY as objective (although the posts of many
committed TMers here are itself evidence to the contrary, since
they themselves are often critical).
So if I had *any* predisposition before reading any of the book,
it was to find that it was objective and fair. Because of the
snarkiness in what I read, though, I can't really point to it as
fully objective. It may be the closest anyone's come so far, but
I'll have to read the whole thing before I can come to that
conclusion.
Judy Stein
> If you managed to avoid this trap, and used *honesty* as
> your only guideline when writing, then you deserve a deep
> bow from me. Being true to oneself in such a situation is
> almost certainly the highest accomplishment one could hope
> for. So if you feel that way about what you have written,
> ignore the comments about 'snarky' and 'having an agenda.'
> They come from snarky people with an agenda.
I know this is difficult for Barry to understand, but if one's
agenda is to write an honest book, it's entirely possible to
do so without being snarky. Even for a critical book, honesty
and snarkiness are not indissolubly linked.
Nor, of course, does snarkiness make a book any less honest,
necessarily. It's a personal choice as to whether one wants
to include it. But snarkiness may cause some readers to be
less receptive to whatever one is trying to communicate. (By
the same token, it may cause other readers to be *more*
receptive.)
> If your intent was to be honest, and you pulled it off to
> your satisfaction, then you succeeded where hundreds, perhaps
> thousands, have failed in the past. Remember that success.
> Many people are going to try to make you forget it, and make
> you feel like shit for having the balls to do something they
> were too afraid or too lazy to do themselves.
In fact, of course, for *most* people who criticize the book,
their criticisms will have nothing to do with being "too afraid
or too lazy" to write their own book. It wouldn't even enter
their minds. Their criticisms have to do with whether they
think the book is fair. They don't think having balls is
contingent on having written a book, although obviously Barry
does.
(How's the novel coming, Barry?)
premanandpaulmason
'Uncle Tantra' - Thank you for your remarks. As you may have guessed,
until recently I have had no experience of internet chat groups.
However, I consider them to be marvellous proof of the freedom of
thought and speech that is far too often denied those who follow
leaders.
On the subject of my book, you may yet find something in it to
interest you, for though it necessarilly deals with the biography of
MMY, it actually covers many other topics.
willytex
> > In the ten years since the book was first published you are the first
> > to present this criticism [about the tone of the writing].
> >
> It isn't a criticism. You have a perfect right to write a snarky
> biography of MMY. I'm just pointing out that it's disingenuous
> to claim you don't have an agenda.
>
> > Since this is the only major biography of the Maharishi and the
> > TM movement, perhaps you might yet give the book a longer closer
> > look. From the little you have said I would guess that you were
> > reading the latter chapters. I must confess that it was sometimes
> > difficult not to express a little of my impatience at the
> > unsubstanciated claims and grandiose schemes that came up through
> > the TMO.
>
> In other words: You have an agenda.
Apparently anybody that doesn't repeat the fundamentalist TMO party
line has an agenda. You don't have any information about the Maharishi
or the TMO, that's obvious. If you haven't even read Mason's book,
maybe you should just keep your pie hole shut and make off topic
comments as a political pundit.
willytex
Paul - For the record, Ms Stein has posted almost zero information
about the Maharishi and the TMO to this forum. As for the others, you
can forget getting a dialog with most of them because they haven't
even been within a thousand miles of a Maharishi Golden Dome in years.
I'd be surprised if even one respondent here has even read your book!
All you are going to get on this newsforum are crude comments
supporting their own ultra-liberal, political punditry, none of which
comments will further your understanding of the Maharishi's programs.
Take it from me Paul, you are wasting your time on this and the
FairfieldLife forum if it's information you want.
With the exception of a single respondent, I suspect that none of the
people posting here are even on the TM program anymore. They are
trolls, pure and simple, if not outright Maharishi-bashers!
For example, just count the number of "I" in the following hateful
post from Mr. Manning. It amazes me how these people could have so
much time on their hands that would stoop to posting slanderous
remarks about someone's spiritual guru on a meditation forum. Go
figure. I've suggested they get a life, to no avail. They think they
own this place!
Can you believe this?
From: John Manning
Subject: TM is a cult
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-09-25 20:17:48 PST
I think Maharishi saved his ass after threats of exposure of his
sexual pecadillos. His empire, to me today, is not much different than
any other corporate entity. It certainly is NOT 'heaven on earth' and
it is very far removed from anything akin to Divinity.
I refuse to hear 'justification' for his bullshit. Bullshit is
bullshit. This is 'guru' bullshit. To me, it is bullshit of the
highest order. (It has the worst stench when it claims Divinity and is
NOT.)
I fully expect proponents of TM and Maharishi to respond. Don't
bother. I, myself, was brainwashed in this shit. I know how it works
on both sides.
"Hayam dukam anagatam" - The shit that has not yet landed on you is
worth avoiding. - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
John Manning
premanandpaulmason
> reader's impression of the book's reliability (at least if
> what they were looking for was an objective account).
If your perception is correct, that the 'couple of chapters' you
lighted on convey a sense of 'snarkiness' (a word totally unknown to
me before you used it) then I agree that it would detract from my
purpose of presenting an objective account.
I would willingly re-write any such passages should you care to tell
me where I might find them. Please email them to
preman...@yahoo.co.uk
Judy Stein
Fair enough, but I'm not going to do all your homework for you. I'll
locate a couple of representative passages so you know what I'm talking
about, then you can find the rest.
Judy Stein
> premanandpaulmason wrote:
<snip>
> > If that is having an agenda, okay!
>
> Paul - For the record, Ms Stein has posted almost zero information
For the record, Paul, Willytex is a troll. You're well advised
not to pay him any mind.
willytex
> > comments, Paul, I haven't read your book. Neither has she.
> > She's read just enough to support the opinion she had before
> > she started reading
> >
> <snicker> First note, again, that "snarky" is not an opinion
> about the validity of the book, it's a characterization of the
> tone of the writing, and it *isn't even a criticism*. My
> criticism was of Paul's claim that he had no agenda.
>
> Second, I had no opinion of the book before reading it; I knew
> nothing about it other than what Paul himself had said in his
> post. There he described it as "critical," and I was interested
> in what kinds of criticism were involved.
>
> I have always maintained on this newsgroup that there must be
> *some* critics of TM and Maharishi who were fair and objective,
> although none of them have yet shown up on this newsgroup. I
> thought it was possible Paul was one of them, and I was hoping
> he'd be someone I could point to in response to the assertions
> of anti-TMers like Barry that committed TMers don't accept any
> criticism of TM/MMY as objective (although the posts of many
> committed TMers here are itself evidence to the contrary, since
> they themselves are often critical).
>
> So if I had *any* predisposition before reading any of the book,
> it was to find that it was objective and fair. Because of the
> snarkiness in what I read, though, I can't really point to it as
> fully objective. It may be the closest anyone's come so far, but
> I'll have to read the whole thing before I can come to that
> conclusion.
So, you haven't actually read Mason's book.
willytex
> <snip>
> > If you managed to avoid this trap, and used *honesty* as
> > your only guideline when writing, then you deserve a deep
> > bow from me. Being true to oneself in such a situation is
> > almost certainly the highest accomplishment one could hope
> > for. So if you feel that way about what you have written,
> > ignore the comments about 'snarky' and 'having an agenda.'
> > They come from snarky people with an agenda.
> >
> I know this is difficult for Barry to understand, but if one's
> agenda is to write an honest book, it's entirely possible to
> do so without being snarky. Even for a critical book, honesty
> and snarkiness are not indissolubly linked.
>
> Nor, of course, does snarkiness make a book any less honest,
> necessarily. It's a personal choice as to whether one wants
> to include it. But snarkiness may cause some readers to be
> less receptive to whatever one is trying to communicate. (By
> the same token, it may cause other readers to be *more*
> receptive.)
>
> > If your intent was to be honest, and you pulled it off to
> > your satisfaction, then you succeeded where hundreds, perhaps
> > thousands, have failed in the past. Remember that success.
> > Many people are going to try to make you forget it, and make
> > you feel like shit for having the balls to do something they
> > were too afraid or too lazy to do themselves.
>
> In fact, of course, for *most* people who criticize the book,
> their criticisms will have nothing to do with being "too afraid
> or too lazy" to write their own book. It wouldn't even enter
> their minds. Their criticisms have to do with whether they
> think the book is fair. They don't think having balls is
> contingent on having written a book, although obviously Barry
> does.
>
forum - did I miss them? Apparently I'm the single respondent who has
actually read the book!
> (How's the novel coming, Barry?)
Non-skeeter.
1. snarky
(adjective) describes a witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that
is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. Usually accepted as a
complimentary term. Snark is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or
arrogant attitude.
Her snarky remarks had half the room on the floor laughing and the
other half ready to walk out.
willytex
Paul - According to Uncle Tantra he hasn't read any books about the
Maharishi since 1971, when he read a leaflet promising enlightenment
in 5-7 years. Uncle gets all of his TM news from this forum.
Bob Hopeless
"premanandpaulmason" <preman...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cac3a6d2.04101...@posting.google.com...
> next chapter of Osho's recollections? I want to know more about the
> king of Cheechli!!
Yeah, I hunted for that story too and couldn't find it. I guess it didn't
fit on the page. Thanks for the credit. People who actually read all the
credits are gonna see Bob Hopeless and think: Bob Hopeless? If I come across
any more startling revelations about our Mr Shrivastava I'll let you know.
Bob Hopeless
Uncle Tantra
> (Paul is at a bit of a disadvantage here, not being familiar with
> my contributions to the newsgroup; he has no way of knowing Barry
> is blatantly misrepresenting them. Barry'd have a hard time
> coming up with anything I've written that could be characterized
> as "fawning," and I could easily come up with many examples of
> posts of mine that were disrespectful and/or highly critical.)
While it may be pushing the dictionary definition of 'fawning,'
I would include certain assumptions, seemingly never challenged
and certainly never proven, as falling into that category -- that
is, "statements assumed as true because the of the implicit level
of authority given to the source of the statement." For example:
1. That TM is unique.
2. That TM produces enlightenment.
3. That Maharishi is enlightened.
4. That the practice of the TM sidhis has anything whatsoever to
to with what Patanjali wrote about as the sidhis.
5. That the practice of the TM sidhis is beneficial.
6. That the practice of the TM sidhis has an effect -- any
effect -- on society or on world peace.
7. That statements and aphorisms clearly aimed at discouraging
TMers from exploring other techniques of self discovery
are not only valid, but justifiable.
8. That "vows of secrecy" ("Thou shalt not speak thy mantra
aloud") extorted from students as a condition of initiation
should and must be respected.
9. That spiritual advice offered by Maharishi on subjects not
directly related to meditation, such as diet, behavior,
politics, etc., are valid and should be considered valid.
10. That progress towards enlightenment is being made, when the
the only "signposts" of enlightenment one is measuring one's
progress against were told to them by the teacher who has a
vested interest in keeping students "within the fold," and
in *not* reading the works of other traditions for *their*
"signposts of enlightenment." (For example, "witnessing
sleep and dreaming" being a Big Step Towards Enlightenment,
when it is considered an everyday occurence or elementary
in other traditions.)
11. That acceptance of the statements "TM is the highest path" or
"TM is the most effective means of realizing enlightenment" by
those who have not experienced -- and will never experience --
any other path is justified and valid.
Unless I am mistaken, you have supported each of these assumptions
in the past, and vociferously. You may be correct that "fawning"
is not the correct term for the state of mind indicated by such
assumptions, but "accepting a great deal on faith" certainly is.
As for "disrespectful," IMO any comments you have made here that
were in the least critical of Maharishi had two things in common.
First, they *still* assumed each of the statements above. Second,
they were couched in "safe" language, phrased in such a way as
to never jeapordize your standing in the TM community and thus
your ability to "go to courses." In your view, that may be
criticism; in mine it's pussy criticism -- "playing it safe."
But to each his or her own...
Unc
P.S. And so as not to have to respond to more than one post, in
answer to your oh-so-obviously heartfelt and well-meaning query
about my writing, the first book is done and put aside for six
months to "age" before the final edit cycle, two more are about
half finished, and I managed to squeeze out a couple of dozen
articles in the same period. What have you done lately? :-)
premanandpaulmason
> any more startling revelations about our Mr Shrivastava I'll let you know.
>
> Bob Hopeless
Bob - You done good! Incidentally, I will be away for a spell, so it
might be better if you mailed any new stuff to
preman...@yahoo.co.uk since it is unlikely I will have much access
to the internet in the Himalayas and when I do first and foremost I'll
most likely be checking my emails.
Judy Stein
[I wrote:}
> > So if I had *any* predisposition before reading any of the book,
> > it was to find that it was objective and fair. Because of the
> > snarkiness in what I read, though, I can't really point to it as
> > fully objective. It may be the closest anyone's come so far, but
> > I'll have to read the whole thing before I can come to that
> > conclusion.
>
> So, you haven't actually read Mason's book.
As I said in my very first post to the thread, I looked at only
a couple of chapters.
Judy Stein
> I haven't seen any critical reviews of Mason's book posted to this
> forum - did I miss them?
Apparently you failed to read Paul's initial post:
Judy Stein
> Judy writes:
> > (Paul is at a bit of a disadvantage here, not being familiar with
> > my contributions to the newsgroup; he has no way of knowing Barry
> > is blatantly misrepresenting them. Barry'd have a hard time
> > coming up with anything I've written that could be characterized
> > as "fawning," and I could easily come up with many examples of
> > posts of mine that were disrespectful and/or highly critical.)
>
> While it may be pushing the dictionary definition of 'fawning,'
<snicker> Uh, yes.
> I would include certain assumptions, seemingly never challenged
Since every single assumption Barry lists has been repeatedly
challenged here by others, including by Barry, and since I've
explained to Barry a number of times that I have challenged
*myself* about every one of them, it's not quite clear in what
sense he means "seemingly."
> and certainly never proven,
Obviously there are very few assumptions about enlightenment
generally that can be "proven," not just TM's assumptions.
If one is interested in actively pursuing self-realization,
assumptions and personal subjective experience are about all
one has to go on.
However, there is some suggestive *evidence* (as opposed to
"proof") for his #5 and #6.
as falling into that category -- that
> is, "statements assumed as true because the of the implicit level
> of authority given to the source of the statement."
As Barry knows, there are a number of other reasons for
assuming the statements (or some of them--see below) are
true, including personal experience and intellectual
evaluation (based on various kinds of inputs and reflection).
For example:
>
> 1. That TM is unique.
Among currently commonly available meditation techniques, yes.
> 2. That TM produces enlightenment.
> 3. That Maharishi is enlightened.
> 4. That the practice of the TM sidhis has anything whatsoever to
> to with what Patanjali wrote about as the sidhis.
Yes. (Note that for me these are *working* assumptions, subject
to revision on encountering convincing arguments or evidence to
the contrary.)
> 5. That the practice of the TM sidhis is beneficial.
Yes, on the basis of personal experience (my own, and reports
from many others) and some suggestive evidence from scientific
studies.
> 6. That the practice of the TM sidhis has an effect -- any
> effect -- on society or on world peace.
Maybe, based on some suggestive evidence from scientific
studies and intellectual evaluation of the rationale (personal
experience plays a role as well in such evaluation).
> 7. That statements and aphorisms clearly aimed at discouraging
> TMers from exploring other techniques of self discovery
> are not only valid, but justifiable.
> 8. That "vows of secrecy" ("Thou shalt not speak thy mantra
> aloud") extorted from students as a condition of initiation
> should and must be respected.
Yes, based on the reasonableness of the explanations (except
that "extorted" is an inappropriate term, and "secrecy" a loaded
one).
> 9. That spiritual advice offered by Maharishi on subjects not
> directly related to meditation, such as diet, behavior,
> politics, etc., are valid and should be considered valid.
Barry knows this one isn't true in my case. I've said repeatedly
and very explicitly many times here, including directly to Barry,
that I think MMY is definitive ONLY in the area of the nature and
mechanics of consciousness. I disagree strongly with many of his
pronouncements on politics and behavior, and I'm skeptical of a
lot of the stuff on ancillary regimens and approaches such as
diet.
> 10. That progress towards enlightenment is being made, when the
> the only "signposts" of enlightenment one is measuring one's
> progress against were told to them by the teacher who has a
> vested interest in keeping students "within the fold," and
> in *not* reading the works of other traditions for *their*
> "signposts of enlightenment."
Since Barry's quite well aware that I've read pretty widely in
the works of other traditions concerning enlightenment and the
signposts thereof, this item appears to be distinctly
disingenuous as well. He should also be aware that many of
MMY's signposts are in full accord with those of most if not
all other enlightenment traditions.
(For example, "witnessing
> sleep and dreaming" being a Big Step Towards Enlightenment,
> when it is considered an everyday occurence or elementary
> in other traditions.)
It would be interesting to see if Barry can back this up, but
he is highly unlikely to do so.
> 11. That acceptance of the statements "TM is the highest path"
Define "highest path." It's never been clear to me what that's
supposed to mean. Barry uses it a lot, attributing it to MMY,
but it isn't a phrase I've encountered in the TM context.
> or "TM is the most effective means of realizing enlightenment"
Among currently commonly available meditation techniques, yes.
(I'd use the word "efficient" rather than "effective.")
> by those who have not experienced -- and will never experience --
> any other path is justified and valid.
Yes, on the basis of personal experience of TM plus intellectual
evaluation (except that, as Barry knows, I experimented with
a number of other approaches before starting TM).
> Unless I am mistaken, you have supported each of these assumptions
> in the past, and vociferously.
"Mistakes" noted above. (Scare quotes around "mistakes" because
Barry knows very well a number of them are simply false.)
You may be correct that "fawning"
> is not the correct term for the state of mind indicated by such
> assumptions
"To court favor by a cringing or flattering manner," per my
dictionary. ("Fawning" refers to behavior, not state of mind,
in any case.)
> but "accepting a great deal on faith" certainly is.
Right. As noted, any approach to self-realization involves
accepting a great deal "on faith" (with the caveats about
personal experience and intellectual evaluation noted above,
as well as the qualification that they're *working* assumptions
in my case), so this would apply to any seeker (including Barry).
> As for "disrespectful," IMO any comments you have made here that
> were in the least critical of Maharishi had two things in common.
> First, they *still* assumed each of the statements above.
*Some*, definitely not "each," as noted above.
Second,
> they were couched in "safe" language, phrased in such a way as
> to never jeapordize your standing in the TM community and thus
> your ability to "go to courses."
Most definitely wrong. As Barry knows, I've made many, many
comments here that would jeopardize my ability to "go to
courses" if those who were in the position to decide knew
about them. And as to my "standing in the TM community," it's
nonexistent in any practical sense. The only "TM community"
I'm a part of is this newsgroup and a couple of Yahoo groups.
In your view, that may be
> criticism; in mine it's pussy criticism -- "playing it safe."
If I wanted to "play it safe," as Barry knows, I wouldn't be
participating in this newsgroup at all; even *reading* it is
severely frowned on in the "TM community."
> But to each his or her own...
>
> Unc
>
> P.S. And so as not to have to respond to more than one post, in
> answer to your oh-so-obviously heartfelt and well-meaning query
> about my writing, the first book is done and put aside for six
> months to "age" before the final edit cycle, two more are about
> half finished, and I managed to squeeze out a couple of dozen
> articles in the same period.
Mmm-hmm. Let us know when they're published, OK?
> What have you done lately? :-)
Lots and lots and lots of editorial work. Of course I don't
claim to be a writer.
Judy Stein
Actually, I'm reconsidering doing even this much.
You said earlier:
I must confess that it was sometimes difficult not to express
a little of my impatience at the unsubstanciated claims and
grandiose schemes that came up through the TMO.
So you *do* know what I'm talking about. All you have to do,
then, is go through and rewrite the passages where your
"impatience" shows through.
Note that this does *not* mean you can't portray the claims and
schemes as grandiose and unsubstantiated. You can do that
perfectly well without being snarky (sarcastic and cynical).
Actually simply stating the claims as made by the TMO makes
their "grandiosity" pretty clear; you don't really need to
comment on that, it'll come through to the reader. (And if
it doesn't, explicitly characterizing them as such isn't going
to help.)
As to their being unsubstantiated, just make the point that
they're unsubstantiated.
In an objective work, if the facts are on your side, all you
have to do is state them. It's when you feel the need to
beef them up with sarcasm and other loaded language that the
reader begins to wonder about your personal bias.
Just out of curiosity, have you thought much about who your
primary target audience is for the book? Obviously anyone
who has any interest at all in TM may want to read it, but
who do you envision as your main audience--TMers, former TMers,
or people who have never had anything directly to do with TM?
willytex
> forum - did I miss them?
>
>> Apparently you failed to read Paul's initial post:
>>
fail to read any of the critical reviews posted here concerning his
book. Since I wrote the vast majority of the critical reviews of
Mason's book I'm well aware of what has been said and I'm well aware
of how many reviews you've posted and how many you've responded to:
about zero.
Apparently you still haven't even read the book nor my reviews. Go
figure.
From: Judy Stein
Subject: Re: Re: Lengthly Med: LesCarlin
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 1995-02-21 18:09:54 PST
I haven't read it, but I've heard both good and bad things about
it. I know it isn't "movement-approved."
Posted by Willytex:
From: willytex
Subject: The Great Rishi
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2004-03-02 17:30:06 PST
From: Willytex
Subject: Strange Facts About a Great Saint
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2003-10-05 12:07:56 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Re: Poison
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2003-09-26 09:16:51 PST
From: willytex
Subject: A Perpetual High
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2002-11-19 21:08:08 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Sampradaya
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2002-08-12 22:39:11 PST
From: willytex
Subject: One Endowed With Wealth
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2002-09-14 09:31:08 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Everyone Knows
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2002-09-14 09:26:56 PST
From: willytex
Subject: This is Yoga Philosophy
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2002-07-30 21:34:17 PST
From: Willytex
Subject: Averting the Danger
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2002-07-25 19:30:18 PST
From: willytex
Subject: The Biography
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-09-18 17:13:59 PST
From: Willytex
Subject: That Certain Something
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2002-04-27 23:24:56 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Mahesh Prasad Varma
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-10-10 13:04:23 PST
From: willytex
Subject: And, You Would Think
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-09-21 19:02:53 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Answers
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-09-12 12:04:20 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Ashram Gossip
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-09-16 12:53:00 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Campfire Meets in Texas
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-09-08 15:51:40 PST
From: willytex
Subject: The Whole Point
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-09-09 20:38:08 PST
From: willytex
Subject: The Books
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-07-31 13:51:01 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Jeff don't know Jack
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-07-13 22:35:30 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Alliance
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-05-18 17:44:49 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Mahesh
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-04-15 18:36:16 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Bal
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-04-14 19:48:03 PST
From: willytex
Subject: H.H. Shantanand Saraswati
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2000-10-16 22:20:09 PST
From: willytex
Subject: Brahmanand Saraswati
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2000/06/22
From: willytex
Subject: The Whole Thing, The Real Thing
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2000/08/07
From: willytex
Subject: Re: 6th and 7th advanced technique
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2000/03/04
Judy Stein
> > I haven't seen any critical reviews of Mason's book posted to this
> > forum - did I miss them?
> >
> Judy Stein wrote:
> >> Apparently you failed to read Paul's initial post:
> >>
> No Judy, I didn't fail to read Mr. Mason's initial post, and I didn't
> fail to read any of the critical reviews posted here concerning his
> book.
But you certainly fail to make any sense at all. Par for the
course for the a.m.t troll.
Uncle Tantra
discussion, except in one instance:
> > 8. That "vows of secrecy" ("Thou shalt not speak thy mantra
> > aloud") extorted from students as a condition of initiation
> > should and must be respected.
>
> Yes, based on the reasonableness of the explanations (except
> that "extorted" is an inappropriate term, and "secrecy" a loaded
> one).
You're not a TM teacher, Judy. I suggest you ask a few teachers
what their instruction was regarding the part of the initiation
procedure where the teacher says, "What we learn in private, we
keep private. Do you agree?" The issue is what they were
instructed to do if the prospective student does *not* say
"Yes." I know that instruction to TM teachers varied from
course to course, but know what I was taught about that event-
uality, so I stand by the use of the phrase "extorted as a
condition of initiation." As for the term "secrecy," well of
course it's a loaded term. It is also an accurate one. You
have your view of the reasons for the secrecy ("protecting the
purity of the teaching," "not 'weakening' the mantra by speak-
ing it aloud," etc.). I have a different view of those reasons
(hiding the generic and commonly-available nature of the
mantras beneath a veil of secrecy to 'add mystery' to something
that is not in the least mysterious and justify the price charged
for them). I am open to the possibility that Maharishi firmly
believes in the former reasons because he was brought up with
them. I am equally open to the possibility he hasn't *consciously*
thought of the latter reason. But it exists nonetheless. It's
a marketing device, a strategy for protecting a monopoly. The
fact that the strategy may have predated Maharishi does not make
it less of a strategy.
Unc
Judy Stein
> discussion
Like George Bush, Barry has a distinct aversion to saying
the words "I fucked up again." He's constitutionally incapable
of it when I'm the one who's exposed his fuckups.
>, except in one instance:
>
> > > 8. That "vows of secrecy" ("Thou shalt not speak thy mantra
> > > aloud") extorted from students as a condition of initiation
> > > should and must be respected.
> >
> > Yes, based on the reasonableness of the explanations (except
> > that "extorted" is an inappropriate term, and "secrecy" a loaded
> > one).
>
> You're not a TM teacher, Judy. I suggest you ask a few teachers
> what their instruction was regarding the part of the initiation
> procedure where the teacher says, "What we learn in private, we
> keep private. Do you agree?" The issue is what they were
> instructed to do if the prospective student does *not* say
> "Yes." I know that instruction to TM teachers varied from
> course to course, but know what I was taught about that event-
> uality, so I stand by the use of the phrase "extorted as a
> condition of initiation."
I'll play Barry's game in a minute, but first I'll note that
the number of people who don't say "Yes" is vanishingly small.
Most are happy to say "Yes" without even thinking about it.
*Even if* there would be some actual extortion involved if
they were to say "No," for the vast majority no persuasion of
any kind is necessary.
So Barry's phrase "extorted from students as a condition of
initiation" is not just inappropriate but flat-out false *on
its face*, no matter what teachers are instructed to do.
And since I'm not telling Barry anything he doesn't know
already, it's clear it was his intention to deceive readers.
Now back to the game:
extort: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation,
or undue or illegal power
So, Barry, tell us what force, intimidation, or undue or illegal
power you were instructed to use if the person did not agree.
In the interests of full disclosure, there's a second meaning:
to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument
Barry may claim this is what he really had in mind, but it's an
unusual and metaphorical meaning of "extort" that would not have
been at all clear from the context.
If all Barry has in mind is that teachers are to tell the person
they can't learn TM without agreeing to keep private teaching
private, that of course does not rise to the level of extortion.
> As for the term "secrecy," well of
> course it's a loaded term. It is also an accurate one. You
> have your view of the reasons for the secrecy ("protecting the
> purity of the teaching," "not 'weakening' the mantra by speak-
> ing it aloud," etc.). I have a different view of those reasons
Of course you do. However, you used the term "secrecy" as if
your view were established fact, when it's only your opinion.
> (hiding the generic and commonly-available nature of the
> mantras beneath a veil of secrecy to 'add mystery' to something
> that is not in the least mysterious and justify the price charged
> for them). I am open to the possibility that Maharishi firmly
> believes in the former reasons because he was brought up with
> them. I am equally open to the possibility he hasn't *consciously*
> thought of the latter reason.
But of course you're not open to the possibility that the
stated reasons are legitimate.
Which is odd, because in the past you've indicated you
understood how delicate the teaching method is, and how
difficult it would be for a person who has been taught
TM to teach it to someone else based solely on what they
remember of how they were taught. (The mantra, of course,
being the least of it.)
But it exists nonetheless. It's
> a marketing device, a strategy for protecting a monopoly.
Or a stratengy for making sure that people who think they're
learning TM are actually learning TM.
I suspect you'd grant that Maharishi is entirely sincere in
his belief that TM is uniquely effective/efficient as a means
of enlightenment for householders, right?
Given that, would it only be a strategy for "protecting a
monopoly" (i.e., maximizing profit) for him to want to ensure
that people learn genuine TM?
Uncle Tantra
>> > > 8. That "vows of secrecy" ("Thou shalt not speak thy mantra
>> > > aloud") extorted from students as a condition of initiation
>> > > should and must be respected.
Judy:
>> > Yes, based on the reasonableness of the explanations (except
>> > that "extorted" is an inappropriate term, and "secrecy" a loaded
>> > one).
Unc:
>> You're not a TM teacher, Judy. I suggest you ask a few teachers
>> what their instruction was regarding the part of the initiation
>> procedure where the teacher says, "What we learn in private, we
>> keep private. Do you agree?" The issue is what they were
>> instructed to do if the prospective student does *not* say
>> "Yes." I know that instruction to TM teachers varied from
>> course to course, but know what I was taught about that event-
>> uality, so I stand by the use of the phrase "extorted as a
>> condition of initiation."
Judy:
>I'll play Barry's game in a minute, but first I'll note that
>the number of people who don't say "Yes" is vanishingly small.
>Most are happy to say "Yes" without even thinking about it.
>*Even if* there would be some actual extortion involved if
>they were to say "No," for the vast majority no persuasion of
>any kind is necessary.
>
>So Barry's phrase "extorted from students as a condition of
>initiation" is not just inappropriate but flat-out false *on
>its face*, no matter what teachers are instructed to do.
>
>And since I'm not telling Barry anything he doesn't know
>already, it's clear it was his intention to deceive readers.
>
>Now back to the game:
>
> extort: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation,
> or undue or illegal power
>
>So, Barry, tell us what force, intimidation, or undue or illegal
>power you were instructed to use if the person did not agree.
To not teach them TM.
To return their money and send them home.
The situation never came up for me person-
ally, because as you suggest most
people were not even aware that they had
*agreed* to anything by saying "Yes." Yet
you are the same person who gives people
shit on this forum for "violating" an agree-
ment to keep the teaching private.
I stick with both "extortion" and "secrecy."
I might add, "pandering to elitists who like
to feel special." If you don't like it, go
suck eggs. :-)
Unc
John Manning
Judy Stein wrote:
When I was teaching, "What we learn in private, we keep in private, do
you agree?" was a *suggestion* that fit smoothly within the overall
context. It never occurred, even once, while I was giving the
instruction, that anyone ever said no. As I said, it was a suggestion,
not a legal contract for gawds sakes.
As it is, that *suggestion* has a practical reason that has solely to do
with the practise itself. Speaking out the mantra weakens the practise.
Barry seems to go by the idea that reading a mantra out of a book
without the puja and the direct contact through the holy tradition, is
sufficient if one just uses the technique. Maharishi himself has, as
other qualified teachers/saints have also, stated that the direct
connection with the teacher is critical to results.
My own experience of teaching TM as I was trained by Maharishi, and
seeing the results in the initiates - compared to others who have just
taken mantras from here or there - speaks for itself. There is no
comparison. The puja is critical, as is keeping the mantra quietly
within. It's part of the proper teaching of not only TM, but other
traditions as well.
Unfortunately, even though Mr. Wright knows this [or should], he chooses
to demean its meaningfulness. That makes me sad - for him.
Judy Stein
<snip>
[I wrote:]
> > extort: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation,
> > or undue or illegal power
> >
> >So, Barry, tell us what force, intimidation, or undue or illegal
> >power you were instructed to use if the person did not agree.
>
> To not teach them TM.
>
> To return their money and send them home.
Which means, as I said, that using the term "extortion"
is entirely inappropriate, since no force, intimidation,
or undue or illegal power is exerted.
And since, as I also said, it is exceedingly rare for
anyone to decline to agree, with no attempt at even
gentle persuasion having taken place, to claim that TM
"extorts" the agreement is flat-out false (and because
Barry knows it's false, it's a lie).
> The situation never came up for me person-
> ally, because as you suggest most
> people were not even aware that they had
> *agreed* to anything by saying "Yes."
That is not, of course, what I suggested at all, so it's
another lie from Barry.
Certainly they know they're agreeing to keep private teaching
private; it would be very difficult to interpret the question
"Do you agree..." and the response "Yes" as anything other
than having agreed.
As Barry knows, what I said is that the agreement is given
without hesitation or deliberation.
Yet
> you are the same person who gives people
> shit on this forum for "violating" an agree-
> ment to keep the teaching private.
Yes indeedy. Since they know they've agreed to keep
private teaching private, they know they're violating
that agreement when they make it public.
> I stick with both "extortion" and "secrecy."
In the face of overwhelming evidence that the first term
is blatantly false and the second--used as if it were
established fact--a matter of Barry's personal opinion.
That's Barry for you.
> I might add, "pandering to elitists who like
> to feel special."
Barry might add all kinds of things; that, of course,
would not make them any more true than the "extortion"
claim. And this one is not true either.
willytex
> When I was teaching, "What we learn in private, we keep in private, do
> you agree?" was a *suggestion* that fit smoothly within the overall
> context. It never occurred, even once, while I was giving the
> instruction, that anyone ever said no. As I said, it was a suggestion,
> not a legal contract for gawds sakes.
>
> As it is, that *suggestion* has a practical reason that has solely to do
> with the practise itself. Speaking out the mantra weakens the practise.
>
> Barry seems to go by the idea that reading a mantra out of a book
> without the puja and the direct contact through the holy tradition, is
> sufficient if one just uses the technique. Maharishi himself has, as
> other qualified teachers/saints have also, stated that the direct
> connection with the teacher is critical to results.
>
> My own experience of teaching TM as I was trained by Maharishi, and
> seeing the results in the initiates - compared to others who have just
> taken mantras from here or there - speaks for itself. There is no
> comparison. The puja is critical, as is keeping the mantra quietly
> within. It's part of the proper teaching of not only TM, but other
> traditions as well.
>
> Unfortunately, even though Mr. Wright knows this [or should], he chooses
> to demean its meaningfulness. That makes me sad - for him.
Mr. Sad - Barry, to my knowledge, has never posted the TM mantras on
the Internet like some others have done.
But if direct contact with the teacher is so critical then there would
hardly be any students. It's very rare that a student will get to be
in the actual presence of a spiritual teacher for any length of time.
Apparently, on many TTCs, Maharishi was seldom around and was flown in
for a short vist. On one TTC that lasted over six months in Asia,
Maharishi didn't appear at all.
For example, the average student couldn't get within fifty feet of the
Osho or Vivek, Muktananda, Nityananda or Chidvilasananda, the Trungpa
Tulku, or the the Deepakage, much less spend a lot of time with them.
Real spiritual teachers are rare these days when you live out in the
back of beyond like I do.
Of course in my case, since I'm living at the Center of the Universe,
there's teachers all over the place - in Austin at the Radience Dome,
or the Rigpa Foundation, at the Shamballa Training Center or at
Barsana, one of the largest Hindu temples outside India. Last year
fourteen Gyuto monks from Tibet built a sand castle at the Museum of
Art in San Antonio. Two of the monks watched a Spurs game at the Alamo
Dome! Can you figure that?
But that's the exception - most people are solo auditing.
Uncle Tantra
Judy is still somehow of the opinion that, because
some writers who lack self confidence or a fully-
developed writing style pay her to rewrite their
works, she has both the right and the power to
rewrite things that people write on Usenet. Not
bloody likely. :-)
She may prefer euphemisms and 'weasal words' whose
purpose is to *hide* the things they describe, not
describe them. Me, I tend to like 'telling it like
it is.' Judy *doesn't* like this, because she iden-
tifies so heavily with the things being described
that she has come to believe that if someone describes
those things -- like TM and its trappings -- in words
that do *not* hide certain aspects of them beneath
euphemisms, it reflects badly on *her*. As well it
might.
My response? Tough beans.
I stick to my guns on this one. I would suggest that
the vast majority of people who have learned TM were
never aware that they agreed to secrecy -- Yes! Secrecy! --
when they answered "Yes" to "Do you agree?" in the
initiation room. They've already paid their money.
They've trucked halfway across town carrying a brown
paper bag containing some fruit and a handkerchief,
they've given somebody a check and filled out a form
that most of them don't even bother to read, except
for the labels on the fields to be filled in, and then
led into a dark room filled with incense smoke and lit
by candlelight and then the intiation starts. And
during it, the teacher mumbles something about "What
we learn in private we keep private" and says "Do you
agree?" and they just nod, because they already feel
silly and awkward and just want the whole thing to be
over so they can go home and see if this meditation
stuff actually works as advertised and whether they've
wasted a shitload of money.
And then later in life they innocently mention their
mantra on the internet and some shrill bitch like Judy
Stein comes running in shouting about their lack of
character and that they are violating their oath to
keep the teaching private. Well, I'm sorry, but if
the former (making the learning of TM dependent upon
a verbal agreement to keep the teaching private) isn't
extortion, the latter (some shrill bitch trying to make
someone feel like shit for telling the truth) certainly
is.
For Judy, the *idea* is far more important than the
reality. If nothing has been established on this news-
group over the years, that certainly has. It even applies
to Maharishi himself. She's managed to avoid even *meeting*
him for over 30 years, in my opinion to keep from having
to 'muddy up' her fantasy idea of Maharishi with reality.
Oh, she'll have excuses and rationalizations for why she
never met him, but that's what they are -- excuses and
rationalizations. As with so many things in life, the
bottom line is what matters. She likes the *idea* of
Maharishi so much, the fantasy of him that she has con-
structed in her mind, that she was always afraid to
subject that fantasy idea to the clear light of reality.
It's the same with words. Judy likes euphemisms because
they describe an *idea* in glowing, flattering terms.
She gets terribly uptight when someone uses *different*
words, words that just might reveal less flattering aspects
of the same ideas and concepts. And then she attempts to
*impose* her euphemisms on others as the 'correct' term to
be used to describe the ideas. When these others prefer
their own words, she is reduced to character assassination,
and to calling them 'liars.'
It's an old story, and a boring one. And to be honest, an
old story told by an old bitch, and a boring one.
Try to badger someone else into using the euphemisms you
prefer, Judy. They might actually fall for it. Me, I'll
stick to my own. They describe the situation as I see it.
And mine in this post describe you as I see you.
Unc
Uncle Tantra
> When I was teaching, "What we learn in private, we keep in private, do
> you agree?" was a *suggestion* that fit smoothly within the overall
> context. It never occurred, even once, while I was giving the
> instruction, that anyone ever said no. As I said, it was a suggestion,
> not a legal contract for gawds sakes.
Then why do you stand by quietly when Judy gives people shit
for "violating" it, as if it were one?
Oh. I forgot.
You're her love slave. Never mind. :-)
> As it is, that *suggestion* has a practical reason that has solely to do
> with the practise itself. Speaking out the mantra weakens the practise.
>
> Barry seems to go by the idea that reading a mantra out of a book
> without the puja and the direct contact through the holy tradition, is
> sufficient if one just uses the technique.
Yes, actually, he does.
> Maharishi himself has, as
> other qualified teachers/saints have also, stated that the direct
> connection with the teacher is critical to results.
Then again, Maharishi has also said, in the last few days, that
Indians should overthrow their elected government. In the past,
he's said that it's "better to be dead" than gay.
Seems to me, John, that when you're wearing your Charley Lutes
Disciple mask, you dump on Maharishi big-time. But when you
are wearing your Pretend I'm Still A TM Teacher mask, you quote
him as some kind of cosmic authority. Which is it? :-)
> My own experience of teaching TM as I was trained by Maharishi, and
> seeing the results in the initiates - compared to others who have just
> taken mantras from here or there - speaks for itself. There is no
> comparison. The puja is critical, as is keeping the mantra quietly
> within. It's part of the proper teaching of not only TM, but other
> traditions as well.
You are entitled to that view. I do not share it.
*My* experience tells me that most of what TM teachers claim
is a "connection to the Holy Tradition" as a result of per-
forming the puja is mood-making.
> Unfortunately, even though Mr. Wright knows this [or should], he chooses
> to demean its meaningfulness. That makes me sad - for him.
I see. I *should* know this. I *should* act the way you
think I should act. :-)
Again, John, you have declared Reality to be What I (John)
Perceive As Reality. Anyone else who perceives differently
is WRONG, and their WRONGNESS makes you sad.
You really *have* been around Judy too long. :-)
It's as simple as this: I performed thousands of pujas, and
feel one way about its potential effect on the teacher and its
value in the teaching process. You performed thousands of
pujas, and feel *another* way about it potential effect on
the teacher and its value in the teaching process. Thus we
have different experiences, different *opinions*.
The fact that you hold a different opinion than I do doesn't
make me "sad," or make you in my eyes a Bad Guy. It's just a
fuckin' difference of opinion, man.
You don't see things that way. As far as I can tell, it's
John's Way Or The Low Way. When it comes to either politics
or "spiritual matters," there is only *one* valid way of
seeing things -- Your Way.
May Your Way lead you where you think it will. I'll take my
own, thanks... :-)
Unc
Judy Stein
addressing anything I actually said, so instead he composes
another of his wild-eyed insult rants.
tantr...@aol.com (Uncle Tantra) wrote in message news:<75774cde.04102...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> Judy is still somehow of the opinion that, because
> some writers who lack self confidence or a fully-
> developed writing style pay her to rewrite their
> works, she has both the right and the power to
> rewrite things that people write on Usenet.
Not surprisingly, it's Barry who is constantly "rewriting"
the words of others and trying to shove them back in the
author's keyboard. Can you say "projection"?
(Oh, and by the way, there are NO writers who are so good
they don't need an editor. On the other hand, good editors
don't rewrite, they edit. Unless the writing is *so* bad
editing isn't enough. Barry may think this is what editors
*always* do because it's what has happened to him.)
> She may prefer euphemisms and 'weasal words' whose
> purpose is to *hide* the things they describe, not
> describe them. Me, I tend to like 'telling it like
> it is.'
Barry prefers expressing his opinions via loaded terms and
weasel words and presenting them as if they were established
fact, and he just *hates* it when he's caught at it.
Judy *doesn't* like this, because she iden-
> tifies so heavily with the things being described
> that she has come to believe that if someone describes
> those things -- like TM and its trappings -- in words
> that do *not* hide certain aspects of them beneath
> euphemisms, it reflects badly on *her*. As well it
> might.
Nah. Doesn't reflect badly on me at all when people use
loaded and inappropriate and inaccurate terms to describe
TM and its trappings. What Barry doesn't like is that it
reflects badly on *him* when he does this and I point it out.
> I stick to my guns on this one. I would suggest that
> the vast majority of people who have learned TM were
> never aware that they agreed to secrecy -- Yes! Secrecy! --
> when they answered "Yes" to "Do you agree?" in the
> initiation room.
Barry's entitled to his opinion. He's not entitled to
attribute that same opinion to me, as he did in his
previous post (speaking of "rewriting" the words of others).
My guess is that if you asked them whether they'd agreed to
secrecy they'd think for a minute and say, Yes, I suppose
you could describe it that way. And you could. But, as I
said, "secrecy" is a loaded word, a way of framing something
so it accords with one's point of view. "Keeping it private,"
in contrast, is much more neutral.
<snip>
> during it, the teacher mumbles something about "What
> we learn in private we keep private" and says "Do you
> agree?" and they just nod, because they already feel
> silly and awkward and just want the whole thing to be
> over so they can go home and see if this meditation
> stuff actually works as advertised and whether they've
> wasted a shitload of money.
Of course, in other contexts Barry claims the "secrecy" is
a big part of TM's appeal, that being let in on a "secret"
teaching feeds the student's need to feel "special." If
that were the case, the student would be *thrilled* that
they were being asked to keep what they were about to learn
private.
But as Barry often says, he isn't bothered by silly things
like consistency.
> And then later in life they innocently mention their
> mantra on the internet and some shrill bitch like Judy
> Stein comes running in shouting about their lack of
> character and that they are violating their oath to
> keep the teaching private.
Actually I don't believe I've ever castigated anyone who
innocently mentioned their mantra here.
<snip>
> For Judy, the *idea* is far more important than the
> reality. If nothing has been established on this news-
> group over the years, that certainly has. It even applies
> to Maharishi himself. She's managed to avoid even *meeting*
> him for over 30 years, in my opinion to keep from having
> to 'muddy up' her fantasy idea of Maharishi with reality.
It would be interesting to know what Barry thinks my "fantasy
idea" of Maharishi is, and how actually meeting him would
"muddy up" that idea.
The answer is, Barry didn't think about it. He was just
desperately rummaging around for something bad to say about
me; it didn't matter whether it made any sense.
He picked another fight with me (all his vows never to do so
again notwithstanding), got his ass handed to him as usual,
and is now so enraged at having made a fool of himself again
he's making a still worse fool of himself. Standard Barry
behavior.
> Oh, she'll have excuses and rationalizations for why she
> never met him, but that's what they are -- excuses and
> rationalizations. As with so many things in life, the
> bottom line is what matters.
Actually I went to great lengths back in 1986, I believe it
was, to attend a big WPA in D.C. because there was a rumor
MMY would be there. He didn't turn up, but it was a terrific
WPA, so I didn't regret the effort.
And sure, if I'd desperately wanted to meet him, I could
have totally disrupted my life and careeer to do so. But
I never wanted to that badly; it was never that important.
Again, though, it would be interesting to know if Barry could
come up with anything I've ever said about Maharishi that
I would discover to have been in error if I met him. I can't
recall anything Barry has said about Maharishi that conflicts
with my idea of who he is (other than Barry's frequent
misrepresentations of what MMY actually *says*, that is).
She likes the *idea* of
> Maharishi so much, the fantasy of him that she has con-
> structed in her mind, that she was always afraid to
> subject that fantasy idea to the clear light of reality.
<belly laugh> Keep on punching, Barry. It's great fun to
see you hit yourself smack in the nose over and over again.
Barry proposes that my need to keep my fantasy of MMY was so
strong that I actively refrained from turning my life upside
down and inside out in order to meet him. And Barry doesn't
see anything the least bit illogical about that premise.
> It's the same with words. Judy likes euphemisms because
> they describe an *idea* in glowing, flattering terms.
> She gets terribly uptight when someone uses *different*
> words, words that just might reveal less flattering aspects
> of the same ideas and concepts. And then she attempts to
> *impose* her euphemisms on others as the 'correct' term to
> be used to describe the ideas. When these others prefer
> their own words, she is reduced to character assassination,
> and to calling them 'liars.'
Unfortunately Barry won't be able to come up with any examples
of what he describes.
In fact, what I do is simply point out when someone has used
a loaded term. Barry doesn't like to have his tactics exposed,
so it makes him furious when I do that to him.
Judy Stein
> > When I was teaching, "What we learn in private, we keep in private, do
> > you agree?" was a *suggestion* that fit smoothly within the overall
> > context. It never occurred, even once, while I was giving the
> > instruction, that anyone ever said no. As I said, it was a suggestion,
> > not a legal contract for gawds sakes.
>
> Then why do you stand by quietly when Judy gives people shit
> for "violating" it, as if it were one?
BZZZZZZTTTTT. False premise. That isn't what I do.
<snip>
> > Maharishi himself has, as
> > other qualified teachers/saints have also, stated that the direct
> > connection with the teacher is critical to results.
>
> Then again, Maharishi has also said, in the last few days, that
> Indians should overthrow their elected government. In the past,
> he's said that it's "better to be dead" than gay.
Non sequitur.
And notice how Barry conveniently ignores the fact that it
ain't just MMY who says the connection with the teacher is
critical to results.
> Seems to me, John, that when you're wearing your Charley Lutes
> Disciple mask, you dump on Maharishi big-time. But when you
> are wearing your Pretend I'm Still A TM Teacher mask, you quote
> him as some kind of cosmic authority. Which is it? :-)
John has been very clear--as have I--that we support what MMY
teaches about meditation, but not his politics or social views.
Apparently that's too difficult a distinction for Barry to
comprehend.
> > My own experience of teaching TM as I was trained by Maharishi, and
> > seeing the results in the initiates - compared to others who have just
> > taken mantras from here or there - speaks for itself. There is no
> > comparison. The puja is critical, as is keeping the mantra quietly
> > within. It's part of the proper teaching of not only TM, but other
> > traditions as well.
>
> You are entitled to that view. I do not share it.
>
> *My* experience tells me that most of what TM teachers claim
> is a "connection to the Holy Tradition" as a result of per-
> forming the puja is mood-making.
Barry the mind-reader. (Actually the *consciousness*-reader.)
Just imagine how Barry would be howling if someone claimed their
own experience told them Barry's wasn't genuine.
Oh, wait, you don't *have* to imagine it. Just read his past
posts.
<snip>
> It's as simple as this: I performed thousands of pujas, and
> feel one way about its potential effect on the teacher and its
> value in the teaching process. You performed thousands of
> pujas, and feel *another* way about it potential effect on
> the teacher and its value in the teaching process. Thus we
> have different experiences, different *opinions*.
Actually both of you are extrapolating your own personal
experiences to TM teachers generally and claiming your
experience is true for all of them. The difference between
Barry and John is that John will acknowledge this now that
I've pointed it out, and Barry won't.
John Manning
Judy Stein wrote:
I did indicate that it was "my own experience". Other TM teachers indeed
could have other experiences. I've written in another post somewhere
that TM teachers' experiences can vary significantly during the
initiation. I have talked with many of them about this. I believe that
I've even discussed this particular point before with Barry on this forum.
Also, I really haven't seen comparable results with people who have
gotten a mantra out of a book. Maybe there 'are' such results. There
likely are in some instances. But in the cases I've encountered, there's
usually been great variation and inconsistency in the methods by which
they actually use the mantra.
Anyway, if one is going to teach TM, sticking to the proper instruction
is essential [again in my own view and experience], and has always
emphatically been required by Maharishi of his teachers - Maharishi's
recent comments about that notwithstanding.
Jeff
"Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.04102...@posting.google.com...
>> (Oh, and by the way, there are NO writers who are so good
> they don't need an editor. On the other hand, good editors
> don't rewrite, they edit. Unless the writing is *so* bad
> editing isn't enough. Barry may think this is what editors
> *always* do because it's what has happened to him.)
Judy thats one of the funniest things you've ever written
Judy Stein
> Judy Stein wrote:
[John wrote:]
> >>>My own experience of teaching TM as I was trained by Maharishi, and
> >>>seeing the results in the initiates - compared to others who have just
> >>>taken mantras from here or there - speaks for itself. There is no
> >>>comparison. The puja is critical, as is keeping the mantra quietly
> >>>within. It's part of the proper teaching of not only TM, but other
> >>>traditions as well.
<snip>
> > Actually both of you are extrapolating your own personal
> > experiences to TM teachers generally and claiming your
> > experience is true for all of them. The difference between
> > Barry and John is that John will acknowledge this now that
> > I've pointed it out, and Barry won't.
>
> I did indicate that it was "my own experience".
You did, but "part of the proper teaching of TM" appears to
extrapolate it to all TM teachers. That's what I was
referring to.
At least you're not trying to tell teachers who *do* have
the experience that, because you *didn't* have it, therefore
they can't really be having it after all!
Uncle Tantra
I agree, Jeff. The first sentence (a treatise on self
importance and how one perceives one's place in the
universe if I ever saw one) leads to the conclusion in
the last sentence (a longing for 'remote revenge' in the
form one of her ilk -- another editor -- getting to rewrite
my words the way Judy has always wanted to do). As it
turns out, none of my non-technical full-length books has
made it to print publication yet, so I can't say what will
happen w.r.t. editing for them. For the technical books,
and without exception all of the articles, I can say proudly
that not one word was ever changed or deleted from my original.
But it's still the first sentence that gives me the chuckles.
I simply can't wait to see how Judy would improve Victor
Hugo, or Melville, or Shakespeare, or Dostoyevsky, or any
of the hundreds of great authors who somehow managed to
"get by" without the (in her mind) oh-so-essential services
of an editor. What a posturing, full-of-herself loon!
:-) :-) :-)
If I *ever* needed a justification for my oft-stated con-
tention that the bottom line with Judy is that She Is RIGHT
And Everyone Else Is WRONG, I could do no better than to
quote her own words -- "There are NO writers who are so
good they don't need an editor."
There you have it. An absolutist statement of fact. There
is NO writer -- no possibility of such a writer existing --
who could possibly do a better job of expressing themselves
than Judy and her ilk could do. Can you say megalomania?
I think you can...
Unc
J.Rocha
<Snip>
>There you have it. An absolutist statement of fact. There
>is NO writer -- no possibility of such a writer existing --
>who could possibly do a better job of expressing themselves
>than Judy and her ilk could do. Can you say megalomania?
>I think you can...
I once read this in a book written by some great writer (could have
been Victor Hugo (?)
"Ah, Ah, Ah, ! --- laughed the duque in Spanish"
;--)
Judy Stein
> > "Judy Stein" <jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:19b3c03e.04102...@posting.google.com...
> > >> (Oh, and by the way, there are NO writers who are so good
> > > they don't need an editor. On the other hand, good editors
> > > don't rewrite, they edit. Unless the writing is *so* bad
> > > editing isn't enough. Barry may think this is what editors
> > > *always* do because it's what has happened to him.)
> >
> > Judy thats one of the funniest things you've ever written
>
> I agree, Jeff. The first sentence (a treatise on self
> importance and how one perceives one's place in the
> universe if I ever saw one) leads to the conclusion in
> the last sentence (a longing for 'remote revenge' in the
> form one of her ilk -- another editor -- getting to rewrite
> my words the way Judy has always wanted to do).
Uh, no. The kinds of things Barry writes are not the kinds of
things I enjoy rewriting, or even editing, for that matter.
As it
> turns out, none of my non-technical full-length books has
> made it to print publication yet, so I can't say what will
> happen w.r.t. editing for them. For the technical books,
> and without exception all of the articles, I can say proudly
> that not one word was ever changed or deleted from my original.
And the likelihood is they're the worse for it. That Barry
may have escaped editing for these works (and we have only
Barry's word for that), of course, doesn't mean they couldn't
have been improved by it.
> But it's still the first sentence that gives me the chuckles.
> I simply can't wait to see how Judy would improve Victor
> Hugo, or Melville, or Shakespeare, or Dostoyevsky, or any
> of the hundreds of great authors who somehow managed to
> "get by" without the (in her mind) oh-so-essential services
> of an editor. What a posturing, full-of-herself loon!
In fact, we don't know that none of these writers were ever
edited.
But for the sake of argument, that they may have "gotten by"
without editing does not mean, again, that they didn't *need*
editing. Folks "somehow managed to get by" without lots of
things before they became available.
It's the self-important writer's conceit that not one jot or
tittle of their golden prose could be improved. Most *good*
writers know the value of an editor. They don't delude
themselves that they can catch every error or infelicity in
their own writing.
> If I *ever* needed a justification for my oft-stated con-
> tention that the bottom line with Judy is that She Is RIGHT
> And Everyone Else Is WRONG, I could do no better than to
> quote her own words -- "There are NO writers who are so
> good they don't need an editor."
Actually Barry would have a very difficult time finding *any*
editor who wouldn't sign on to that proposition.
> There you have it. An absolutist statement of fact. There
> is NO writer -- no possibility of such a writer existing --
> who could possibly do a better job of expressing themselves
> than Judy and her ilk could do.
Notice how Barry has "edited" my statement to make it say
something entirely different from what I actually said.
That's *bad* editing.
Not only that, he'd have a very difficult time finding an
editor who would not assert that even an editor needs an
editor.
willytex
If so, please add your name to this list:
Richard WIlliams
willytex
>> But you certainly fail to make any sense at all. Par for the
>> course for the a.m.t troll.
Paul Mason wrote:
> I would welcome any fresh material which might throw new
> light on MMY's life-story, especially the early years about
> which we know so little.
Do you have any comments to make concerning MM's life story?
willytex
> But you certainly fail to make any sense at all. Par for the
> course for the a.m.t troll.
In a review of all the posts here from 1996 until the present I see
'zero' posts by Ms Stein offering any insigts into MMY's life story
and almost zero comments concerning Paul's book. My conclusion is that
Ms Stein hasn't read the book.
You are supposed to make your comments AFTER you've read the book. So,
who's the troll?
John Manning
Judy Stein wrote:
> John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:<10niu2n...@news.supernews.com>...
>
>>Judy Stein wrote:
>
> [John wrote:]
>
>>>>>My own experience of teaching TM as I was trained by Maharishi, and
>>>>>seeing the results in the initiates - compared to others who have just
>>>>>taken mantras from here or there - speaks for itself. There is no
>>>>>comparison. The puja is critical, as is keeping the mantra quietly
>>>>>within. It's part of the proper teaching of not only TM, but other
>>>>>traditions as well.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>Actually both of you are extrapolating your own personal
>>>experiences to TM teachers generally and claiming your
>>>experience is true for all of them. The difference between
>>>Barry and John is that John will acknowledge this now that
>>>I've pointed it out, and Barry won't.
>>
>>I did indicate that it was "my own experience".
>
>
> You did, but "part of the proper teaching of TM" appears to
> extrapolate it to all TM teachers. That's what I was
> referring to.
OK. I see your point now. Thanks.
>
> At least you're not trying to tell teachers who *do* have
> the experience that, because you *didn't* have it, therefore
> they can't really be having it after all!
Yeah. Barry says it's mood-making. I'm critically aware of what
mood-making is. The 'bliss-ninny' thing has always turned me off big
time. But what I've experienced during the puja has been at times [not
every time], extremely powerful and undeniable. Many other TM teachers
whom I'd consider to be totally rational and down to earth, have told me
the same thing.
TM teachers' experiences do vary a lot. As long as the TM technique is
taught properly as per Maharishi's instruction, I sure can't complain.
And, as far as I know, that specific instruction hasn't varied much at
all over the years. Any variation has only been a refinement of wording.
The technique itself hasn't changed at all.
Uncle Tantra
>been Victor Hugo (?)
>
>"Ah, Ah, Ah, ! --- laughed the duque in Spanish"
>
>;--)
I don't know the context, but I find it
hilarious. Of course, if it wasn't
supposed to be funny, that's another
story... :-)
Unc
Uncle Tantra
>It's the self-important writer's conceit that not one jot or
>tittle of their golden prose could be improved. Most *good*
>writers know the value of an editor. They don't delude
>themselves that they can catch every error or infelicity in
>their own writing.
And that is different from the self-important
editors' conceit that their changes actually
*improve* the writing exactly how?
:-)
Judy Stein
You are. Go back and read my posts in this thread.
Judy Stein
> Judy Stein wrote:
> > John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:<10niu2n...@news.supernews.com>...
> > At least you're not trying to tell teachers who *do* have
> > the experience that, because you *didn't* have it, therefore
> > they can't really be having it after all!
>
> Yeah. Barry says it's mood-making. I'm critically aware of what
> mood-making is. The 'bliss-ninny' thing has always turned me off big
> time. But what I've experienced during the puja has been at times [not
> every time], extremely powerful and undeniable. Many other TM teachers
> whom I'd consider to be totally rational and down to earth, have told me
> the same thing.
Same here.
> TM teachers' experiences do vary a lot. As long as the TM technique is
> taught properly as per Maharishi's instruction, I sure can't complain.
> And, as far as I know, that specific instruction hasn't varied much at
> all over the years. Any variation has only been a refinement of wording.
> The technique itself hasn't changed at all.
Hard to imagine how it *could* change and still be TM!
Judy Stein
It's different in that the writers (the good ones,
anyway) agree that the editor's changes have improved
their writing.
Stu
Unc. She is right. I have written a few articles here and there for
trade publications. I used to know a guy who was an editor for the
Wall Street Journal and he didn't mind looking at my stuff. His
changes were often subtle but made the words flow like silk.
You don't have to use the editor's notes if you don't want to but a
good editor really polishes up the message.
Its sort of like color correcting a movie. Before you color correct it
the picture seems fine. But you get a good colorist to do a pass and
there is a new dimension that you didn't notice before.
--
~Stu
Uncle Tantra
>>>It's the self-important writer's conceit that not one jot or
>>>tittle of their golden prose could be improved. Most *good*
>>>writers know the value of an editor. They don't delude
>>>themselves that they can catch every error or infelicity in
>>>their own writing.
Unc:
>> And that is different from the self-important
>> editors' conceit that their changes actually
>> *improve* the writing exactly how?
Judy:
>It's different in that the writers (the good ones,
>anyway) agree that the editor's changes have improved
>their writing.
You mistake agreement (or, given the real
state of much editing today, submission to
a process dictated by a publisher as a
necessary evil one must go through before
the spineless publisher will agree to release
the book) for improvement.
The bottom line is the same. One person
uses their completely subjective opinion to
decide "better" and "worse." If the writer
actually feels that the editing has made
his or her work "better," that is agreeing
with the opinion of the editor. If the writer
feels that the editing has made his or her
writing worse, but has to agree to it anyway
because of a spineless publisher, that is
submitting to the opinion of an editor. In
both cases, someone's *opinion* wins. No
"better," no "worse," just one opinion win-
ning out over another one.
You made the absolutist statement that
there is NO writer whose work can't be
improved by editing, Judy. I invite you to
prove it. Pick long, significant passages
from James Joyce, or Shakespeare, or
Melville, or *any* great writer and edit them.
Then post them here so we can see how
you "improved" them.
Put up or shut up.
Unc
Uncle Tantra
>>>> It's the self-important writer's conceit that not one jot or
>>>> tittle of their golden prose could be improved. Most *good*
>>>> writers know the value of an editor. They don't delude
>>>> themselves that they can catch every error or infelicity in
>>>> their own writing.
Unc:
>>> And that is different from the self-important
>>> editors' conceit that their changes actually
>>> *improve* the writing exactly how?
Judy:
>> It's different in that the writers (the good ones,
>> anyway) agree that the editor's changes have improved
>> their writing.
Stu:
>Unc. She is right.
Stu. She is right about *some* writing.
Possibly, given the sad state of education
these days, even *most* writing.
But that's not what she said. She said
that there was NO writer whose work could
not be improved by editing. That's an
absolutist statement that is pure fuckin'
ego, and *obviously* has nothing to do
with reality, as the history of great
literature shows.
>I have written a few articles here and there for
>trade publications. I used to know a guy who was an editor for the
>Wall Street Journal and he didn't mind looking at my stuff. His
>changes were often subtle but made the words flow like silk.
Absolutely. I've had to be an editor in my
tech writing stuff, and know its value. I'm
really *not* saying editing doesn't have a
place, I'm challenging the stark, egomaniacal
STUPIDITY of saying there is NO writer
whose work cannot be improved by editing.
>You don't have to use the editor's notes if you don't want to but a
>good editor really polishes up the message.
Actually, in many cases you DO have to
submit to the editor's remarks, or the pub-
lisher won't publish the book or article. The
publishers, on the whole, don't really care
about quality of writing -- they care about
making money. So in many cases, sadly,
the purpose of the editor is to take the
writer's language and change it to "write
down" to a dumber, and thus hopefully
larger, audience.
>Its sort of like color correcting a movie. Before you color correct it
>the picture seems fine. But you get a good colorist to do a pass and
>there is a new dimension that you didn't notice before.
Again, I agree. How could I not, having
just watched Amelie again, in preparation
for seeing Jeunet's new film coming out
next week?
Look, I'm not knocking editing. I'm knock-
ing the incredible ego and hubris of one
particular editor. Look at what she said,
and then look at her history here, and what
you find is the same statement -- basically,
"There is NO ONE whose thoughts and
intentions I can't express better than they
do. After all, I am RIGHT and unless they
agree with me and my way of phrasing
their thoughts and exposing their intentions,
they are WRONG."
That's it. If Judy had just said, "Most
writers could benefit from editing" this
would be a non-issue. She didn't. She
said ALL of them could benefit from
editing. To put that in perspective, it's a
way of saying, "*I*, because I am an
editor, can do a better job than they can."
It's the same old story, in a different guise...
Unc
Uncle Tantra
me talking about a process I love :-),
"feedback" is definitely important to the
writer who wants to communicate. (And
face it, many of them *don't* want to
communicate...for them writing is just an
exercise in ego.) One of the most valuable
forms of feedback, more valuable in my
opinion than a formal editing process, is
having a great "first reader" or series of
"first readers" that you know and trust.
In my case, I'm fortunate because my
"first reader" is my roommate. So not only
do I get to have the advantage of her feed-
back on books, I often get *far* more
valuable feedback by being able to *watch*
her read the article or chapter in question.
There is a fabulous moment in the film
Amelie in which the filmmaker tells us, in
narration, some of the things that each
character likes and dislikes. For Amelie
herself, one of the things she likes is to
sit in a movie theater and turn around and
watch the faces of the people watching
the movie.
That's just fucking magic. That's Jeunet
talking, as filmmaker.
When I am in the same room when my
roommate is reading something, I can
often tell which parts of the story or chapter
need work before she gives me her formal
feedback, just by watching her face when
she's reading. If she looks quizzical, I
didn't do a good enough job at explaining
something. If she looks bored, I know that
there is something I need to "tech up" in
the section *before* the one she is reading,
not the one she is actually reading when
she looks bored. It's really cool.
Anyway, as a film editor I thought you
might like that. Feedback is part of the
*writing* process. It's value is *during* the
writing process. It's not something that
*everyone* benefits from after the writing
process is finished.
My issue is with the blanket statement.
It's silly, and you'll see exactly *how* silly
when Judy blows off my invitation to put up
or shut up, and show us how she could
"improve" a few great writers.
Unc
Judy Stein
> Judy:
> >>>It's the self-important writer's conceit that not one jot or
> >>>tittle of their golden prose could be improved. Most *good*
> >>>writers know the value of an editor. They don't delude
> >>>themselves that they can catch every error or infelicity in
> >>>their own writing.
>
> Unc:
> >> And that is different from the self-important
> >> editors' conceit that their changes actually
> >> *improve* the writing exactly how?
>
> Judy:
> >It's different in that the writers (the good ones,
> >anyway) agree that the editor's changes have improved
> >their writing.
>
> You mistake agreement (or, given the real
> state of much editing today, submission to
> a process dictated by a publisher as a
> necessary evil one must go through before
> the spineless publisher will agree to release
> the book) for improvement.
Um, no, I'm talking about *active* agreement by the writer
with the premise that the editing improved the writing.
Moreover, not all editors by any means work excusively
for publishers; many of them (including me) work directly
for writers as well, before the work is even submitted
for publication.
And finally, you've got the direction of the publishers'
"spinelessness" exactly backward. These days it's much
more likely that the publisher will do only a rudimentary
copy edit (if even that!) than insist on a thorough editing
job--especially for writers with a good track record of
sales--simply because it doesn't enhance the publisher's
bottom line.
(It's not clear how the publisher could be both "dictator"
and "spineless," but I suspect it's another case of your
having got so caught up in your own rhetoric you forgot
about making sense.)
You're 0 for 3 on this one, Barry. You don't know what
the hell you're talking about.
> The bottom line is the same. One person
> uses their completely subjective opinion to
> decide "better" and "worse."
Of course. Obviously that's the only way writing *can*
be evaluated. Your point was what, again?
<snip>
> You made the absolutist statement that
> there is NO writer whose work can't be
> improved by editing, Judy. I invite you to
> prove it. Pick long, significant passages
> from James Joyce, or Shakespeare, or
> Melville, or *any* great writer and edit them.
> Then post them here so we can see how
> you "improved" them.
>
> Put up or shut up.
Where did I say there was no writer whose work couldn't
be improved by *my* editing??
Notice how you have to "edit" what I said, radically
changing the meaning, in order to make your nitwit points.
You're 0 for 5 now.
Judy Stein
<snip>
> But that's not what she said. She said
> that there was NO writer whose work could
> not be improved by editing. That's an
> absolutist statement that is pure fuckin'
> ego, and *obviously* has nothing to do
> with reality, as the history of great
> literature shows.
In the first place, as I already noted, it's an "absolutist"
statement that the vast majority of editors (and a lot of
writers) agree with, not one peculiar to me.
In the second place, as I also already noted, the history of
great literature shows no such thing. Soms great writers may
well have escaped editing (if only because it wasn't available),
but obviously that doesn't mean their writing couldn't have
been improved by an editor. Moreover, for all we know these
writers may well *have been* edited. (As it happens, Victor
Hugo *did* have an editor; his name was Pierre-Jules Hetzel.)
0 for 2.
I'm
> really *not* saying editing doesn't have a
> place, I'm challenging the stark, egomaniacal
> STUPIDITY of saying there is NO writer
> whose work cannot be improved by editing.
That would be the stark, egomaniacal stupidity of the vast
majority of editors (and a good number of writers as well).
0 for 4.
> >You don't have to use the editor's notes if you don't want to but a
> >good editor really polishes up the message.
>
> Actually, in many cases you DO have to
> submit to the editor's remarks, or the pub-
> lisher won't publish the book or article.
As noted in my other post, a lot of editing takes place
before the manuscript is even submitted to the publisher.
And in my experience and observation, it's very rare for
a publisher to insist on its editor's changes if the
author strongly objects to them.
0 for 6.
The
> publishers, on the whole, don't really care
> about quality of writing -- they care about
> making money. So in many cases, sadly,
> the purpose of the editor is to take the
> writer's language and change it to "write
> down" to a dumber, and thus hopefully
> larger, audience.
In fact, "writing down" is quite rare (except in the
case of school textbooks).
0 for 7.
<snip>
> Look, I'm not knocking editing. I'm knock-
> ing the incredible ego and hubris of one
> particular editor.
Again, that would be "the incredible ego and hubris"
of the vast majority of editors (and a good number of
writers as well).
0 for 8.
Look at what she said,
> and then look at her history here, and what
> you find is the same statement -- basically,
> "There is NO ONE whose thoughts and
> intentions I can't express better than they
> do. After all, I am RIGHT and unless they
> agree with me and my way of phrasing
> their thoughts and exposing their intentions,
> they are WRONG."
That's *not* what I said. I never said there were no
writers whose writing *I* could not improve.
0 for 9.
> That's it. If Judy had just said, "Most
> writers could benefit from editing" this
> would be a non-issue. She didn't. She
> said ALL of them could benefit from
> editing. To put that in perspective, it's a
> way of saying, "*I*, because I am an
> editor, can do a better job than they can."
> It's the same old story, in a different guise...
No, that's Barry's story, not mine. It's getting older
by the minute, and it isn't improving with age. I never
personalized my statement and would not dream of doing
so.
Barry has no case if he takes my statement at face value,
so he twists what I said into something completely different
and bashes that instead.
0 for 10. Total: 0 for 15, counting the outs in his previous
post.
Judy Stein
<snip>
Feedback is part of the
> *writing* process. It's value is *during* the
> writing process. It's not something that
> *everyone* benefits from after the writing
> process is finished.
Most writers (*good* writers, that is) would say they
*never* feel the writing process is really finished.
Often the editor's role is ultimately to get the writer
to leave well enough alone.
0 for 1.
> My issue is with the blanket statement.
> It's silly, and you'll see exactly *how* silly
> when Judy blows off my invitation to put up
> or shut up, and show us how she could
> "improve" a few great writers.
Never said *I* could improve the works of great writers.
What I said, again: There is no writer whose writing could
not be improved by AN EDITOR.
0 for 2. Total of 17 outs for Barry today.
Stu
> at's just fucking magic. That's Jeunet
> talking, as filmmaker.
>
> When I am in the same room when my
> roommate is reading something, I can
> often tell which parts of the story or chapter
> need work before she gives me her formal
> feedback, just by watching her face when
> she's reading. If she looks quizzical, I didn't do a good enough job
> at explaining
> something. If she looks bored, I know that
> there is something I need to "tech up" in
> the section *before* the one she is reading,
> not the one she is actually reading when she looks bored. It's really cool.
I do the same thing all the time. Generally I bring home a tape and
watch my families reactions. I can make adjustments based on the
reactions. I gotta see Amelie.
--
~Stu
Judy Stein
> tantr...@aol.com (Uncle Tantra) wrote in message news:<20041024061422...@mb-m19.aol.com>...
> <snip>
> Feedback is part of the
> > *writing* process. It's value is *during* the
> > writing process. It's not something that
> > *everyone* benefits from after the writing
> > process is finished.
>
> Most writers (*good* writers, that is) would say they
> *never* feel the writing process is really finished.
> Often the editor's role is ultimately to get the writer
> to leave well enough alone.
I should add, just as there no clear line to delineate when
a piece of writing is "finished," there is no clear distinction
between "feedback" and "editing."
A great deal of editing involves feedback to the writer from
the editor: "This paragraph doesn't make its point as strongly
as it could because etc., etc., etc.; you might think about
doing A, B, and C." "I found this passage confusing, because
back on page X you said Z, and it seems to conflict with Y.
Could you clarify?" "This word isn't quite right in context;
could you find another term that doesn't suggest such-and-such?"
And this is just on the copy/line editing level. On the
developmental level, the process is almost all feedback, a lot of
it in much more general terms: "You lose the narrative momentum
in chapter 2 with that long flashback. You might try breaking it
up and interspersing it with pieces of the current action." "I
didn't get a very clear idea of character X's motivations. Perhaps
you could let the reader in on his thoughts from time to time
throughout." "The narrative is much too cerebral. You need more
visual description--of the characters' physical appearance, their
gestures and expressions, their surroundings--or readers won't
feel as though they're experiencing what's happening."
Obviously all these examples involve the writer doing more work
on the manuscript. The editor, in other words, is providing
feedback to the writer about where and how the manuscript isn't
as finished as it could be.
(A good editor will also compliment the writer on the aspects of
the manuscript that work well, of course; that's also feedback.
And if the whole thing works well, the editor's touch will be
very delicate, fixing punctuation here and there, breaking up a
sentence that's too long to be clear, inserting a paragraph
break where appropriate, ensuring consistency in the spellings
of names, and so on.)
Bottom line: Barry doesn't have a *clue* what editing involves.
He's sounding off about something of which he's just about
completely ignorant.
Uncle Tantra
> > > Feedback is part of the
> > > *writing* process. It's value is *during* the
> > > writing process. It's not something that
> > > *everyone* benefits from after the writing
> > > process is finished.
Judy, as a non-writer, pontificating about writers:
> > Most writers (*good* writers, that is) would say they
> > *never* feel the writing process is really finished.
> > Often the editor's role is ultimately to get the writer
> > to leave well enough alone.
Judy, still pontificating:
> I should add, just as there no clear line to delineate when
> a piece of writing is "finished," there is no clear distinction
> between "feedback" and "editing."
Ah, but there IS a clear distinction, my sweet. It's
the point at which the *writer* decides he is finished.
Editing -- by SOMEONE ELSE -- takes place AFTER that
point. All that precedes that point is writing.
You'd like to believe, it being the way you make money
and all, that you as an editor are *part* of the writing
process. And for many writers these days, that is sadly
true. I hold to a different standard: if there is any-
thing for an editor to do with something I have written,
then I haven't done my job.
Many writers do not have the time or inclination to do
as good a job with their writing as they should. They
take more pride in the paycheck than they do in the
process. Not all writers are like that. Some of us
still believe in the *craft* of writing, and in the
far more durable reward of Having Done The Best Job We
Can Possibly Do, and allow the paycheck to be a reflec-
tion of that impeccability, rather than a reflection of
a rush job patched together at the last minute with the
help of an editor.
I work in the software industry; I understand deadlines.
And I further understand that many writers, under similar
publication deadlines, may not have the time to do their
job before submitting a manuscript. Either that, or they
don't have the inclination or predilection to do so. But
my whole point in this discussion is that these writers,
content with doing only *part* of their job, do not neces-
sarily reflect *all* writers. You seem to believe they do.
Otherwise, other than sheer ego ("BY DEFINITION *any* editor
can do a better job finalizing *any* manuscript than *any*
writer") you have no basis for saying, flatly, "There are
NO writers who are so good they don't need an editor." Such
a statement simply does not ALLOW for the possibility of a
writer who simply cares enough about his craft to do a good
enough job that they DON'T need an editor. Such a statement
is ego on the part of editors, pure and simple.
All of this jive you've been spouting is simply smoke and
mirrors to distract people here from that fact. The bottom
line is that you have made a statement that says, in effect,
that editors are better writers than the writers they assist.
That's just puffed-up, strutting ego, and I suspect everyone
here *except* yourself knows it.
It didn't have to be. You could have said, "With very few
exceptions, most writers benefit from an editor." You didn't.
What you said was, "There are NO writers who are so good
they don't need an editor." NO writers. NEED. I'm sorry,
babe, but you've backed yourself into an Egocorner with this
one.
In previous posts on this subject, I linked this particular
statement with one I've made about you here often in the past,
that you personally are driven by a desperate need to assert
your correctness in all things -- basically, "I am RIGHT, and
my opponent in this debate is WRONG." I suggest that this
basic operating system has either carried over into your per-
ception of your career, or that it developed as a result of
your career, and has carried over into your "real" life (as
"real" as your life ever gets, that is).
And how do you DISPUTE my assertion that the biggest compulsion
in your life is to show, over and over and over and over and
over again, that you are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG?
You started "keeping score." Yup, that's right. You start
trying to take my posts apart point by point and keeping a
running score at the end of each point and at the end of each
post. "0 for 5" "0 for 20...Barry's not doing too well, is
he?"
Can you say, "Making my point FOR me?"
You're NOT right all the time, Judy. No human is. Live with it.
No matter how you "keep score" in that hideously insecure mind
of yours, it really isn't UP to you to determine who is RIGHT
and who is WRONG. I know that pisses you off, but it's true.
Everybody ELSE here gets to decide, or hopefully is more adult
about the whole thing and just doesn't CARE who is RIGHT and
who is WRONG. *YOU* are the one who cares. *YOU* have the
compulsion to be RIGHT. It forces you to defend absolutist
statements that are patently untrue, because you made the state-
ment and now cannot stand to be seen to back down from it. It
forces you to do stupid stuff like deny that you are compelled
to be RIGHT and prove everyone else WRONG, and "keep score" in
your attempt to deny it.
If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny.
62-63 years old. Over thirty years of practice of self discovery.
And the only thing you can think of to amuse yourself is to try
to "win" discussions with someone who isn't even playing to win.
You keep counting the "score," Judy.
I suspect those you are trying so desperately to impress here
will instead be counting the years you have under your belt, and
measuring them against the considerably fewer years you have
left, and wondering if you'll DIE as convinced that you're RIGHT
about everything as you have lived.
And I suspect further that they will be doing so as I do, with
more pity than respect. Because if you're convinced you're
RIGHT about everything already, then where is the room to learn,
to grow, to evolve? You are exactly the same on this forum as
you were ten years ago. Doesn't that make YOU sad? I know it
makes some others here -- besides myself -- sad. They're watch-
ing great potential being pissed down the drain, by someone so
lost that they actually believe that *counting* each moment she
wastes "keeping score" and trying to "win" is the best she could
achieve in life.
Forget writing. If anyone's LIFE could be helped by editing,
Judy, it's yours. Get thee to an editor you trust. Let them
help you. Or are you convinced that you've already written it
so well that you don't need any help? :-)
Unc
Judy Stein
> Unc:
> > > > Feedback is part of the
> > > > *writing* process. It's value is *during* the
> > > > writing process. It's not something that
> > > > *everyone* benefits from after the writing
> > > > process is finished.
>
> Judy, as a non-writer, pontificating about writers:
> > > Most writers (*good* writers, that is) would say they
> > > *never* feel the writing process is really finished.
> > > Often the editor's role is ultimately to get the writer
> > > to leave well enough alone.
>
> Judy, still pontificating:
> > I should add, just as there no clear line to delineate when
> > a piece of writing is "finished," there is no clear distinction
> > between "feedback" and "editing."
>
> Ah, but there IS a clear distinction, my sweet. It's
> the point at which the *writer* decides he is finished.
> Editing -- by SOMEONE ELSE -- takes place AFTER that
> point. All that precedes that point is writing.
Well, no, sorry. As I pointed out, in most cases the writer
*continues* to write AFTER he or she has turned the manuscript
over to an editor, on the basis of feedback from the editor.
If you want to *arbitrarily* define "writing" as what takes
place prior to the editor receiving the ms., and everything
that takes place afterward--*even if it includes more writing
on the part of the writer*--as "editing," you're certainly
welcome to do that, but it would obviously be a thoroughly
artificial distinction that does not reflect what actually
happens.
The same is true, as I noted, of "feedback." You can arbitrarily
define "feedback" as reaction from others prior to giving the ms.
to an editor, and reaction from the editor thereafter as "editing,"
but again that's an artificial distinction that doesn't reflect
the actual processes involved.
In terms of what the parties involved actually *do*, the writer
continues to receive feedback after giving the ms. to the editor
and continues to write based on that feedback.
In some rare cases, no feedback or additional writing by the
writer is required, as I noted; the editor does only minor
tinkering. But that's *rare*.
Writers at some point *have* to decide they're "finished"
if they ever want to see their work published; but most
*good* writers would say that's also an arbitrary point;
it doesn't mean there isn't anything more they could do.
> You'd like to believe, it being the way you make money
> and all, that you as an editor are *part* of the writing
> process.
Editors are certainly *involved* in the writing process, in
the same sense that pre-editing givers of feedback are
involved in it. The editors may or may not *do* any actual
writing, but it doesn't make any sense to say they aren't
*involved* in it.
And for many writers these days, that is sadly
> true. I hold to a different standard: if there is any-
> thing for an editor to do with something I have written,
> then I haven't done my job.
*No* writer is capable of "doing their job" in that sense.
That isn't a putdown of writers, of course. As I said, even
editors need an editor. No human being is capable of reading
their own writing as another reads it.
<snip>
> my whole point in this discussion is that these writers,
> content with doing only *part* of their job, do not neces-
> sarily reflect *all* writers. You seem to believe they do.
What I'm saying is that no writer can possibly do the "whole
job." Some do more of it than others, obviously; but most
*good* writers are *never* content that they've done all they
possibly can.
> Otherwise, other than sheer ego ("BY DEFINITION *any* editor
> can do a better job finalizing *any* manuscript than *any*
> writer")
Not what I said. Again you have to "edit" what I wrote in order
to characterize what I said as "ego."
Let's restore my original meaning to your formulation: For
any given writer, there is at least one editor who can do
a better job of finalizing the writer's ms. than the writer
can. Not "any editor"; some editors are better than others,
just as some writers are better than others. There are also
differences in background and specific skills and knowledge
that would make one editor better suited than another to edit
the work of a given writer.
you have no basis for saying, flatly, "There are
> NO writers who are so good they don't need an editor." Such
> a statement simply does not ALLOW for the possibility of a
> writer who simply cares enough about his craft to do a good
> enough job that they DON'T need an editor.
It isn't a matter of either the degree of caring or the degree
of craft, or the amount of time, or anything other than that
the writer *cannot* read his or her own writing objectively,
by definition.
Such a statement
> is ego on the part of editors, pure and simple.
Actually it's ego on the part of a writer to think he or she
is able to edit his or her own work.
> All of this jive you've been spouting is simply smoke and
> mirrors to distract people here from that fact. The bottom
> line is that you have made a statement that says, in effect,
> that editors are better writers than the writers they assist.
> That's just puffed-up, strutting ego, and I suspect everyone
> here *except* yourself knows it.
I suspect everyone here knows that isn't what I said, and you
know it too. Again, you have to *rewrite* what I said and
change the meaning in order to make your point.
Editing and writing are *very* different processes. Some
editors are also writers, but some, like me, are only editors.
They're two different skill sets. And editors who are also
writers are the first to insist their writing needs an editor
just as any other writer's does.
An editor who is also a writer *might* say he or she is a better
writer than a particular writer he or she is editing, but that
would be an unusual case. No editor would make the blanket
statement you falsely attribute to me.
> It didn't have to be. You could have said, "With very few
> exceptions, most writers benefit from an editor." You didn't.
Right, because it ain't true.
> What you said was, "There are NO writers who are so good
> they don't need an editor."
Actually what I said originally was that there is no writer
whose work could not be improved by an editor. Whether a
writer "needs" an editor depends on what you mean by "need."
NO writers. NEED. I'm sorry,
> babe, but you've backed yourself into an Egocorner with this
> one.
Nope. Has nothing to do with ego. Or at least not with
*my* ego or *editors'* egos. It's *your* ego that can't
accept that your writing isn't improvable by anyone other
than yourself.
> In previous posts on this subject, I linked this particular
> statement with one I've made about you here often in the past,
> that you personally are driven by a desperate need to assert
> your correctness in all things -- basically, "I am RIGHT, and
> my opponent in this debate is WRONG." I suggest that this
> basic operating system has either carried over into your per-
> ception of your career, or that it developed as a result of
> your career, and has carried over into your "real" life (as
> "real" as your life ever gets, that is).
Even if you were correct about my purported need to assert my
correctness in all things--which you're not, of course--it
wouldn't have a thing to do with what I said about writers
benefiting from an editor. Only a small proportion of the
editing process involves "right" versus "wrong." Most often
it's a matter of "better" versus "worse," along a continuum
of what are often very fine shadings.
> And how do you DISPUTE my assertion that the biggest compulsion
> in your life is to show, over and over and over and over and
> over again, that you are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG?
>
> You started "keeping score." Yup, that's right. You start
> trying to take my posts apart point by point and keeping a
> running score at the end of each point and at the end of each
> post. "0 for 5" "0 for 20...Barry's not doing too well, is
> he?"
>
> Can you say, "Making my point FOR me?"
I could if that were what I had done, but it wasn't. My point
was that you're abysmally ignorant of what editing involves, and
of what publishing involves as well. You've made one stupid
statement after another in your continuing attempts to make *me*
wrong and yourself right--but you simply don't know what you're
talking about.
> You're NOT right all the time, Judy. No human is. Live with it.
Oh, I do.
> No matter how you "keep score" in that hideously insecure mind
> of yours, it really isn't UP to you to determine who is RIGHT
> and who is WRONG. I know that pisses you off, but it's true.
Hilarious. Barry thinks he should be able to make wildly
factually incorrect statements, for the purpose of making
somebody else wrong, without ever having them pointed out.
Sorry, Barry, but it isn't UP to you to determine you shouldn't
be held accountable for your errors. I know that pisses you
off, but it's true.
<snip>
> It forces you to defend absolutist
> statements that are patently untrue, because you made the state-
> ment and now cannot stand to be seen to back down from it.
My statement about editing was correct. If I were to "back down"
from it, I'd be saying something I know to be *incorrect*.
<snip>
> 62-63 years old. Over thirty years of practice of self discovery.
> And the only thing you can think of to amuse yourself is to try
> to "win" discussions with someone who isn't even playing to win.
Actually I do a lot of things to amuse myself besides hanging
Barry with his own ignorance. And I'll just point out that
Barry is "playing to win" big-time and has been for years, even
though he keeps losing incessantly.
> You are exactly the same on this forum as you were ten years ago.
A number of folks have noted quite recently how *you* never
seem to change, Barry. And I'll be the first to agree.
Doesn't that make YOU sad? I know it
> makes some others here -- besides myself -- sad. They're watch-
> ing great potential being pissed down the drain, by someone so
> lost that they actually believe that *counting* each moment she
> wastes "keeping score" and trying to "win" is the best she could
> achieve in life.
<belly laugh> Poor Barry. All this ranting is his response to
having made a total ass of himself over my editing comment.
Notice that he hasn't dealt with any of my corrections of his
erroneous statements, other than by making a feeble attempt to
argue about whether a writer can ever be finished with his/her
work.
J.Rocha
>tantr...@aol.com (Uncle Tantra) wrote in message
<Snip> (Endless and potentially eternal discussion, basically about
writers and critics) ;--) :--(
>Nope. Has nothing to do with ego. Or at least not with
>*my* ego or *editors'* egos. It's *your* ego that can't
>accept that your writing isn't improvable by anyone other
>than yourself.
Ha!
... "writing isn't improvable" ...
I think "isn't" is wrong , it should be "is" !
;--0)
(returning to lurk mode ...)
<Snip> Endless .... Endless .... Endless ....
Judy Stein
<snip>
Just to make one point a bit more succinctly:
Some of us
> still believe in the *craft* of writing, and in the
> far more durable reward of Having Done The Best Job We
> Can Possibly Do
<snip>
> writers [who are] content with doing only *part* of their
> job, do not necessarily reflect *all* writers.
There are three kinds of writers:
1. Writers who are content with doing only part of their job
2. Writers who are not content with doing only part of their job
3. Writers who have convinced themselves they've Done The Best
Job They Can Possibly Do And That Nobody Can Improve Their
Work
Barry belongs in category 3.
*Good* writers are in category 2. They believe they could have
done a better job, and that no matter how good a job they've managed
to do, somebody else could always improve it.
John Manning
Judy Stein wrote:
Category 3 sounds like George Bush. :-)
Judy Stein
> On 25 Oct 2004 08:25:45 -0700, jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote:
>
> >tantr...@aol.com (Uncle Tantra) wrote in message
>
> <Snip> (Endless and potentially eternal discussion, basically about
> writers and critics) ;--) :--(
>
> >Nope. Has nothing to do with ego. Or at least not with
> >*my* ego or *editors'* egos. It's *your* ego that can't
> >accept that your writing isn't improvable by anyone other
> >than yourself.
>
> Ha!
>
> ... "writing isn't improvable" ...
>
> I think "isn't" is wrong , it should be "is" !
You're right, thanks.
As I said, even editors need an editor. ;-)
Stu
Sounds like we are in for an infinite progression here. Who will edit
the editor's last edit? Judy you have become the MC Escher of editors.
--
~Stu
Uncle Tantra
> <belly laugh> Poor Barry. All this ranting is his response to
> having made a total ass of himself over my editing comment.
> Notice that he hasn't dealt with any of my corrections of his
> erroneous statements, other than by making a feeble attempt to
> argue about whether a writer can ever be finished with his/her
> work.
My comments about the editing process came, without exception,
from writers I know well. All have multiple books under their
belts, many of them Best Sellers, one of them the author of a
#1 international Best Seller. It is *their* experience with
editors I passed along, not mine. As I said, I haven't had to
deal with editors much. If there is a difference in what *you*
perceive as the realities of the editing process and what
these working writers perceive as the realities of the editing
process, I suspect you might just be working with a lower class
of writer. :-)
As for the editing process, I'll actually take a moment and tell
you what *I* would be looking for in an editor, and allow you
to tell me (and the newsgroup) whether you could do it.
I will concede your editing skills, although I have never seen
them in action. I will even concede that as a grammarian you
are superior to me -- I'm an instinctual or intuitive grammarian;
you seem to know the reasons why certain things should be the
way they're supposed to be. I will concede further that you
probably are pretty good at seeing a work as a whole and helping
your clients say what they're trying to say more effectively.
But that's not what I'm looking for in a "first reader" or an
editor. I'm looking for someone who can help me with magic.
In my opinion there are three levels of writing. The first is
"Just the facts, ma'am." No art, no decoration, just the facts
of an event. The second is more artful, using "tricks of the
trade to make the event being described more "real" to the
reader, to immerse them in the time, place and events.
The third is where the magic comes in. It's where the writer
is able to "reach out" through the pages and shift the reader's
state of consciousness. This is what I aspire to, and occas-
ionally achieve.
To assist me in this quest, what I need in a "first reader" is
someone who is skilled at analyzing minor and major fluctuations
in their state of consciousness. I need someone who can read a
chapter and, afterwards, tell me what their state of conscious-
ness was before reading it, and what their state of consciousness
was after reading it.
With all due respect, someone who only thinks in terms of "Seven
states of consciousness" can't do this. I need someone who has
had experience identifying and describing and analyzing the tens
of thousands of minor fluctuations in, say, the waking state.
Fortunately, I have a few "first readers" who can do this with
my writing. Most of them studied with Rama, and as a result had
a great deal of practice over the years analyzing their fluctu-
ating states of consciousness, describing them in ways that other
students can understand, and detecting the shift from one state
of consciousness to another. With them I can have conversations
like:
"So where were you after reading the third chapter?
"The desert. Definitely the desert."
"Cool. The Gorge, Font's Point, or Grand Canyon."
"Font's Point. Definitely."
"Day or night."
"Night. 2 a.m., on the New Year's trip 1992, with the thunder
and lightning on all sides of us, everywhere but where we were
sitting, Rama dancing."
"Cool. Better than I had hoped."
Or, occasionally, these people report no significant shift of
attention at all, and I have to go back to the drawing board
and try again, if my intent is to attempt to shift the reader's
attention to a particular place.
So, as I said, most of these "first readers" worked with Rama.
This helps because we "speak the same language," shared the
same common states of consciousness. One is a Zen master, the
abbot of a fairly well-known monastery. Another is a Yaqui
shaman who doesn't even read English; he has one of his students
translate for him and sends his comments on the state of con-
sciousness thang back to me via the student.
It's really a fun process. And it wouldn't work for everyone,
but I kinda like it.
How many professional editors do you know who could do this
for me?
Unc
Uncle Tantra
Oh. If you haven't seen it, you really *do* have to see Amelie.
Get the DVD, which has something like four hours of the director
and cinematographer and editor and other members of the team
talking about the film. It's a bloody masterpiece, by a very
serious filmmaker who is so serious he's not above being whimsical.
Unc
Judy Stein
> On 2004-10-25 16:15:20 -0700, jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) said:
>
> > J.Rocha <nos...@nospam.nl> wrote in message
> > news:<26dqn0ps416c6hv3m...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 25 Oct 2004 08:25:45 -0700, jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote:
> >>> Nope. Has nothing to do with ego. Or at least not with *my* ego or
> >>> *editors'* egos. It's *your* ego that can't
> >>> accept that your writing isn't improvable by anyone other
> >>> than yourself.
> >>
> >> Ha!
> >>
> >> ... "writing isn't improvable" ...
> >>
> >> I think "isn't" is wrong , it should be "is" !
> >
> > You're right, thanks.
> >
> > As I said, even editors need an editor. ;-)
>
> Sounds like we are in for an infinite progression here. Who will edit
> the editor's last edit? Judy you have become the MC Escher of editors.
<grin> What I meant was (see earlier context) that even
editors need an editor *when they write* (as opposed to edit).
But you're right, in a sense: just as there's no such thing
as a perfect, finished piece of writing, there's no such thing
as a perfect, finished edit of a piece of writing either.
There's always room for improvement. You just gotta know when
to stop, or nothing would ever get published.
Uncle Tantra
> "So where were you after reading the third chapter?
>
> "The desert. Definitely the desert."
>
> "Cool. The Gorge, Font's Point, or Grand Canyon?"
>
> "Font's Point. Definitely."
>
> "Day or night."
>
> "Night. 2 a.m., on the New Year's trip 1992, with the thunder
> and lightning on all sides of us, everywhere but where we were
> sitting, Rama dancing."
>
> "Cool. Better than I had hoped."
...actually took place recently. The chapter in question was
describing events in 13th-century France, not the desert. But
my friend was able to pick up on the parallel state of attention
I was referencing (but never mentioned in the text). She "got"
not only the desert, but the exact desert trip and moment I had
in mind.
Then again, she didn't feel diddley in a couple of other places,
so *that* didn't happen. Try, try again... :-)
Unc
Judy Stein
> > <belly laugh> Poor Barry. All this ranting is his response to
> > having made a total ass of himself over my editing comment.
> > Notice that he hasn't dealt with any of my corrections of his
> > erroneous statements, other than by making a feeble attempt to
> > argue about whether a writer can ever be finished with his/her
> > work.
>
> My comments about the editing process came, without exception,
> from writers I know well.
No, sorry. You made a few comments that may have come from
ideas you got from others, but most of what you wrote consisted
of your own comments on what I'd said--including your deliberate
misrepresentations of what I'd said.
You also elaborated on what your writer friends told you and
drew from it grossly incorrect and in some cases totally
irrelevant conclusions.
And you made really idiotic claims, such as that the fact that
some great writers may have been published without having been
edited somehow disproved my statement that there were no writers
whose work couldn't be improved by editing.
<snip>
> deal with editors much. If there is a difference in what *you*
> perceive as the realities of the editing process and what
> these working writers perceive as the realities of the editing
> process, I suspect you might just be working with a lower class
> of writer. :-)
If any of your writer pals told you they didn't believe their
work could be improved by an editor, then they're in the same
class of ego-crazed hack writers that you are.
But I doubt any of them actually said that.
The bits and snippets that came from other writers were mostly
accurate as far as they went, but as noted it's what you tried
to make of them that was off the wall--for example, your nutty
notion that editing takes place only at the publisher's behest,
or that the writer only gets feedback before submitting the ms.
to a publisher, or that the writer doesn't continue to work on
the ms. after it's been submitted.
> As for the editing process, I'll actually take a moment and tell
> you what *I* would be looking for in an editor, and allow you
> to tell me (and the newsgroup) whether you could do it.
By your own definition, what you go on to describe is "feedback,"
which, according to you, has nothing to do with editing. In this
case I agree, what you're talking about isn't editing in any sense
of the term.
Of course, it doesn't have anything to do with the point at
issue--whether there are writers whose work cannot be improved
by an editor--either.
willytex
> But what I've experienced during the puja
>
puja. How many students did you initiate, maybe two or three in over
25 years?
From: John Manning
Subject: Question for Mormons
Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
Date: 2003-12-13 14:05:05 PST
It astounds me that any intelligent adult human being
could buy the secret handshake thing - or the ritual.
John Manning
willytex
> Hard to imagine how it *could* change and still be TM!
What's even harder to imagine is how you think John Manning taught TM.
From: John Manning
Subject: Love Reaches
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-10-02 20:29:22 PST
I met Maharishi and meditated for 25 yrs. I saw his bullshit - even
evil. I don't need his rantings. Nor do I wish them upon others.
John Manning
Judy Stein
> My comments about the editing process came, without exception,
> from writers I know well.
Quick P.S.: Where you went so badly awry is in taking the bits
and pieces you remembered of what they'd told you and trying to
turn them into slams at me. But you don't know enough about the
process as a whole, so you ended up ludicrously misapplying them.
Also, just for the record, I suspect I know a quite a few more
writers than you do, given that I've been making my living
working with them since 1976.
Finally, there's no big deal to being Right. Facts are facts,
and simply knowing what the facts are isn't to anybody's special
credit. It's just the baseline.
Not knowing what the facts are and making them up to suit yourself--
being Wrong about the facts--is way below the baseline; it's very
definitely to your DIScredit.
Uncle Tantra
>> My comments about the editing process came, without exception,
>> from writers I know well.
Judy:
>Quick P.S.: Where you went so badly awry is in taking the bits
>and pieces you remembered of what they'd told you and trying to
>turn them into slams at me. But you don't know enough about the
>process as a whole, so you ended up ludicrously misapplying them.
>
>Also, just for the record, I suspect I know a quite a few more
>writers than you do, given that I've been making my living
>working with them since 1976.
I seriously doubt it.
It's not that I'm so special. I just took
advantage of a rather unique opportunity
during my years in Santa Fe. I volunteered
to work with The Lannan Foundation.
They're a non-profit org who sets up lectures
by writers in Santa Fe, writers of the caliber
that are rarely seen *anywhere*, including
New York. Check out a few of them at
random on the org's tape archive page:
When you work for Lannan, you get to
hang out with the writers after the lectures.
Because Santa Fe is a Pretty Nice Place,
many of these authors took the opportunity
of a paid speaking engagement there to
turn it into a longer, paid vacation, and so
I got to hang with them for extended periods
of time. Many of them have stayed in touch.
Oh. And one other thing you forgot to
point out in your long tirade about the
differences between writers and editors.
When dealing with new, still-struggling
writers, established authors tend to give
of their time and their advice for free, rather
than charge for it.
Unc
Uncle Tantra
here's the bottom line as I see it.
When I originally took you to task for the absolutist nature
of your statement, that there is NO writer whose work cannot
be improved by an editor, you made some rather unwarranted
assumptions. The most egregious is that I would resist having
my work edited.
That's simply not true. For some types of writing I do -- the
political articles, the historical articles, etc. -- the pub-
lisher actually had the option of editing them. They chose
not to. Had they sugggested some edits, and had those edits
made sense and preserved what I was trying to say, I would've
had no problem with them, and would have thanked the editorial
staff profusely.
The area in which I resist the imposition of editoral license
is in writing in which I am attempting magic. In those works,
as I suggested yesterday, I am not writing just words; I am
attempting to write 'source code' for a program that 'runs'
when the reader reads it. If I was successful at that attempt,
the program will run properly, and create the proper shift in
consciousness that I was hoping for. Having never encountered
an editor who understands this aspect of writing (and having
encountered many writers who do), I would resist heavily any
edits in which a non-programmer attempts to fuck with a program.
Furthermore, what you're arguing for, Judy, is a style of writing
that is collaborative. I have NO PROBLEM with this, and have
done it many times myself, especially in technical works. A
writer working in conjunction with an editor makes the process
more of a team sport, like making a film. As I'm sure Stu
would support, the "autour theory" of film is bunkum. It's an
intensely collaborative effort between a large number of artists
to create a work of art -- literally a team sport.
I am merely reminding you, and others on this forum, of another
way of making art. Solo. Some writers still like the idea of
doing the work themselves, taking all the risks themselves, and
sharing the resulting credit or failure themselves. It's more
a parallel with the painter or sculptor or graphic artist than
it is with making movies. You don't see a lot of painters work-
ing with professional art critics. :-)
For some types of writing, that is the approach I attempt to
take. We will just have to see, if and when any of them are
published, whether the publisher agrees with my 'take' on the
final work. I will deal with their opinion at that point.
But not until.
You are comfortable with writing as a team sport. I play a
different game. That's all...
Unc
Judy Stein
> here's the bottom line as I see it.
>
> When I originally took you to task for the absolutist nature
> of your statement, that there is NO writer whose work cannot
> be improved by an editor, you made some rather unwarranted
> assumptions. The most egregious is that I would resist having
> my work edited.
No, I never made that assumption. What I said was that you
(obviously) resisted the notion that your work could be
improved by an editor.
However, interestingly enough, you call "egregious" an
assumption that you yourself go on to explicitly confirm:
> The area in which I resist the imposition of editoral license
> is in writing in which I am attempting magic....I would resist
> heavily any edits in which a non-programmer attempts to fuck
> with a program.
So even if it *had* been my assumption that you would resist
having your work edited, I would have been correct.
> That's simply not true. For some types of writing I do -- the
> political articles, the historical articles, etc. -- the pub-
> lisher actually had the option of editing them.
"Had the option"? But in an earlier post you asserted that
publishers impose editing on authors against the latter's will,
that they're "dictators" in that regard. I think what you
mean to say is that the publisher chose not to exercise its
right to edit.
> The area in which I resist the imposition of editoral license
> is in writing in which I am attempting magic. In those works,
> as I suggested yesterday, I am not writing just words; I am
> attempting to write 'source code' for a program that 'runs'
> when the reader reads it. If I was successful at that attempt,
> the program will run properly, and create the proper shift in
> consciousness that I was hoping for. Having never encountered
> an editor who understands this aspect of writing (and having
> encountered many writers who do), I would resist heavily any
> edits in which a non-programmer attempts to fuck with a program.
Having never, as you yourself admit, actually worked with an
editor on a piece of writing of this nature, obviously you
have no idea whether editors are capable of understanding it.
In any case, a *good* editor, even if a "non-programmer," will
recognize, or understand on being told, that you're attempting
something very specific and very delicate, even if the editor
doesn't grasp exactly how it's being implemented, and will keep
hands off as much as possible.
However, there are still elements of the text that aren't
essential to that implementation but that make a difference
to the "readability" (and no, I'm not talking about dumbing-
down) that the writer may not have paid attention to because
he or she was focused on the more important "programming"
aspects--things as minor as consistency in the spelling of
names, for example, or the "rhythm" of a particular piece
of punctuation.
A good editor, before making any such changes, will make sure,
by checking with the writer, that they *don't* disturb what
the writer was attempting to do.
> Furthermore, what you're arguing for, Judy, is a style of
> writing that is collaborative.
Not at all, not in the "team sport" sense you mean. Certainly
that's a style of writing that may be appropriate in some cases,
but I'm not "arguing for it" as the only way to go. It would
*not* be appropriate in many other cases.
Editing is always "collaborative" only in the broad sense of
the term that includes the technical as well as the creative
side. Some editing work involves creative collaboration, but
in much other editing work, the editor is just a technician,
not a co-creator. And there are many shades betwixt and
between. One of a good editor's skills is knowing what point
on that spectrum is appropriate for a particular piece of
writing.
(Quick digression: You go on to draw a parallel between the
writer as sole creator and the painter as sole creator, but
of course in the past, many paintings were highly collaborative
enterprises; the master would do a sketch, and the actual
painting would be executed by members of his "atelier" or
workshop, after which the master would put in a few
finishing touches. Such a painting is still attributed
to the master even if most of the work was done by others.)
I have NO PROBLEM with this, and have
> done it many times myself, especially in technical works. A
> writer working in conjunction with an editor makes the process
> more of a team sport, like making a film. As I'm sure Stu
> would support, the "autour theory" of film is bunkum. It's an
> intensely collaborative effort between a large number of artists
> to create a work of art -- literally a team sport.
>
> I am merely reminding you, and others on this forum, of another
> way of making art. Solo. Some writers still like the idea of
> doing the work themselves, taking all the risks themselves, and
> sharing the resulting credit or failure themselves.
(I think you mean *not* sharing the resulting credit or failure.)
It's more
> a parallel with the painter or sculptor or graphic artist than
> it is with making movies. You don't see a lot of painters work-
> ing with professional art critics. :-)
Both your parallels--to filmmaking and the visual arts--are, in
many significant respects, not parallel at all. That might make
an interesting discussion.
But I'll just note here that writers certainly have the *option* of
doing the whole thing themselves; self-publishing is very viable
these days and no longer carries the stigma it once did (just as
a filmmaker, with sufficient funding and technical and creative
skills, has the option of making a film all by him- or herself).
However, that writers have this option says nothing about whether
it will result in the best possible product. It says nothing about
whether the product *could have been improved* had the writer
employed an editor.
> For some types of writing, that is the approach I attempt to
> take. We will just have to see, if and when any of them are
> published, whether the publisher agrees with my 'take' on the
> final work. I will deal with their opinion at that point.
And you always have the option, as noted, of self-publishing.
> But not until.
>
> You are comfortable with writing as a team sport. I play a
> different game. That's all...
I'm comfortable with the entire range of possibilities, from
writing with no editor, to writing with editor as creative
collaborator, to writing with editor as skilled technician,
even to writing with editor as janitor.
I simply assert, as I did to start with and as you have done
nothing to call in question, that writers who believe their work
can't be improved by an editor (even if it's just a matter of
picking up the trash) are deluded by their egos.
Judy Stein
> Unc:
> >> My comments about the editing process came, without exception,
> >> from writers I know well.
>
> Judy:
> >Quick P.S.: Where you went so badly awry is in taking the bits
> >and pieces you remembered of what they'd told you and trying to
> >turn them into slams at me. But you don't know enough about the
> >process as a whole, so you ended up ludicrously misapplying them.
> >
> >Also, just for the record, I suspect I know a quite a few more
> >writers than you do, given that I've been making my living
> >working with them since 1976.
>
> I seriously doubt it.
>
> It's not that I'm so special. I just took
> advantage of a rather unique opportunity
> during my years in Santa Fe.
Well, we could do a count, but that would be kinda silly.
<snip>
> Oh. And one other thing you forgot to
> point out in your long tirade about the
> differences between writers and editors.
> When dealing with new, still-struggling
> writers, established authors tend to give
> of their time and their advice for free, rather
> than charge for it.
Might that possibly be because these writers make a good
living by writing and don't *need* to charge for their
assistance to new writers, since it isn't how they support
themselves?
You *might* even find that editors who make a decent living
at their craft are occasionally willing to give their time
and advice for free to new writers.
Jeez, Barry.
Judy Stein
> > J.Rocha <nos...@nospam.nl> wrote in message
> > news:<26dqn0ps416c6hv3m...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 25 Oct 2004 08:25:45 -0700, jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote:
> >>> It's *your* ego that can't accept that your writing isn't
> >>> improvable by anyone other than yourself.
> >>
> >> Ha!
> >> ... "writing isn't improvable" ...
> >> I think "isn't" is wrong , it should be "is" !
> >
> > You're right, thanks.
> >
> > As I said, even editors need an editor. ;-)
>
> Sounds like we are in for an infinite progression here. Who will edit
> the editor's last edit? Judy you have become the MC Escher of editors.
(Huh. I posted a response to this, but it never showed up on
Google; likewise my response to Barry's post about what he's
looking for in an "editor"; only my later P.S. appeared. Stu, did
you see my earlier response to the above?)
Anyway, I'll have another try: What I meant by even editors
need an editor is, even editors need an editor *when they
write*. They can't edit their own writing any more than
can writers who only write. It's sort of a law of nature. ;-)
As to editing editing, sometimes the process involves several
levels of editing, but part of the job of the editor at the
top of the chain is to decide when enough is enough, even if
theoretically the process could continue indefinitely.
willytex
> Just to finish up this silly exercise in writer vs. editor :-),
> here's the bottom line as I see it.
Just to finish up, over 80 messages about nothing. Apparently neither
of you have read Paul's book yet and you probably wont'. Neither of
you have anything pertinent to say about Paul's message. In my
opinion, you both ought to keep your pie holes shut and give it a
rest. Find something better to do with your time, - what's left of it.
A total waste of bandspace.
From: premanandpaulmason
Subject: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's life-story
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2004-10-17 05:30:30 PST
The biography of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi [currently displayed on-line at
http://paulmason.info] is currently undergoing revision by the author
Paul Mason.
From: Judy Stein
Subject: Re: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's life-story
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2004-10-18 07:22:31 PST
Oh, of course you have an agenda. I don't know whether your facts
are reliable or not, and I only looked at a couple of chapters, but
your tone is distinctly snarky.
From: Uncle Tantra
Subject: Re: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's life-story
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2004-10-19 01:38:01 PST
"Snarky," according to the Judy Dictionary, means "Any description
of things I identify with that is less respectful and fawning
and uncritical than the one I would write."
Stu
I apologize I did not mean the tone of my post to be pejorative. It
was really meant as an aside. Should have put the ;-) on it.
--
~Stu
John Manning
Stu wrote:
Stu is a gentleman. I'm curious, Stu. How has BushCo affected the TV
industry [apart from the news media and Janet's nipple]?
Judy Stein
<snip>
> I apologize I did not mean the tone of my post to be pejorative. It
> was really meant as an aside. Should have put the ;-) on it.
I didn't think it was pejorative, I just thought it was a wisecrack.
But I wanted to clarify what I meant anyway. No problem!
Stu
It really has not affected content on the show I have worked on. Most
are for teens and we are fairly self policing. Fox was pretty tough on
"Method and Red", with allusions to drugs and swearing - but I had to
agree with their notes. After all I don't see any reason to expose
teens to any more bad language and drugs then they get from their peers.
Where I have seen the biggest change is in the consolidation of the
mega corporations. A few years back Paramount, 20th Century Fox,
Universal and Warners made product for the three networks and were more
or less autonomous companies. The creative people had control over
their shows. People were allowed to try new and different ideas.
Now Fox is Murdoch, Warners is AOL Time Warner, Paramount - Viacom
CBS,UPN, Universal is NBC/Uni. The suits all answer to marketing
departments and the corporate higher ups. There are no more Warren
Littlefields or Fred Silvermans that would take chances on shows.
These new guys come from finance and are all scared to death to try
anything new. So the result is every show is recycled garbage. People
are turning off the TV in droves and these guys think its DVD's or the
internet - but what it really is - is people want to be entertained.
That means they want surprises. They want something fresh and new.
But that flies in the face of corporate think. Why try something new
when you can guaranty audience by putting Paris Hilton in skimpy cloths
and have her talk to farmers?
Bush is doing everything he can to promote this consolidation of the
media. He has opened up the rules that made it so production companies
could not own distribution, or dominate a market. The result is that
there is less competition. Less creativity. And more short term
thinking. Why stage a new comedy that may generate profit for years to
come in reruns when you can attract an audience this week with reality
based crap. Never mind that these shows are disposable and have no
shelf life. We made this quarter's earnings.
Its beyond stupid.
--
~Stu
John Manning
Thanks for that insight. Geez. I lost interest in TV gradually over a
period of time. Now I know why, from behind the scenes. Mostly I will
watch the movie channels we have here and sometimes the BBC News and/or
CNN. The quality of the news is very disappointing though so I stick to
the web. Most political speeches and some events are also available here
on CSPAN on the web.
My wife watches a couple of Brazilian soaps. They are very well done
here. They are of short duration, lasting only two or three months.
They're more like historic mini-epochs or extended comedy stories or
crime intrigue; good love stories too - and the quality is very high.
And they do occasionally show [gasp!] breasts and butts. LOL.
I don't know the network mechanisms here like you've described there,
but it seems Brazilian TV copies a lot of stuff from the USA. Big
Brother Brazil was a real snoozer.
willytex
>
> If so, please add your name to this list:
>
> Richard WIlliams
I thought not. Must be a lot of trolls out there!
Uncle Tantra
And, sadly, a lot of books. Many of
them about more interesting people
than Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
As much as I like Paul's way of handling
himself here (and I really, really do), I have
so many books on my To Be Read stack
that there is a wager in my neighborhood
as to which will run out first -- my book
list or the breath in my lungs. :-)
So it's not actually likely that I'll get to
Paul's book.
Unless Kerry wins.
If that happens, I hereby promise to perform
the penance you have all wanted me to
undertake for my evil ways, and read the
book.
It's a deal. :-)
Unc
TonkBar
Jeff
"willytex" <will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f53f3a73.04102...@posting.google.com...
sir_snake86
"Bob Hopeless" <des...@nohoper.com> wrote in message news:<yu2dnXYYJt9...@look.ca>...
> "premanandpaulmason" <preman...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cac3a6d2.04101...@posting.google.com...
> > >Mahesh Yogi's and my
> > > places of birth are very near to each other; both of us were born near
> > > Gadawara. He was born in Chichli, I was born in Kuchwada. If the
> environment
> > > is bad, it must be there. Gadawara should be suffering for it -- or
> > > receiving the blessing. Jabalpur should not be dragged into this."
> > > http://www.barnett.sk/software/sos/osho/osho-talks/enligh01.htm
> > >
> > > Bob Hopeless
> >
> > Thank you Bob - incidentally, Swami Swaroopanand is also said to come
> > from Jabalpur. I will get right on the Chichli connection!!
>
> Paul,
> Here is some more stuff from Osho:
>
> "I was going to give you an example. The station was two miles from my town
> and divides it from another small village called Cheechli, six miles away.
> By the way, Cheechli was the birthplace of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He never
> mentions it. There are reasons why he does not mention where he was born,
> because he belongs to the sudra class in India. Just to mention that you
> come from a certain village, certain caste, or profession -- and Indians are
> very uncultured about that. They june just stop you on the road and ask you,
> "What is your caste?" Nobody thinks that this is an interference.
> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was born on the other side of the station, but because
> he is a sudra, he can neither mention the village -- because it is a village
> of only sudras, the lowest caste in the Indian hierarchy -- nor can he use
> his surname. That too will immediately reveal who he is.
> His full name is Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava, but "Shrivastava" would put a
> stop to all his pretensions, at least in India, and that would affect others
> too. He is not an initiated sannyasin in any of the old orders, because
> again, there are only ten sannyasin orders in India. I have been trying to
> destroy them, that is why they are all angry with me.
> These orders are again castes, but of sannyasins. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
> cannot be a sannyasin because no sudra can become an initiate. That's why he
> does not write "Swami" before his name. He cannot, nobody has given him that
> name. He does not write behind his name, as Hindu sannyasins do, Bharti,
> Saraswati, Giri et cetera; they have their ten names.
> He has created his own name -- "Yogi." It does not mean anything. Anybody
> trying to stand on his head, and of course falling again and again, can call
> himself a yogi, there is no restriction on it.
> A sudra can be a yogi, and the name Maharishi is something to replace
> "Swami," because in India things are such that if the name "Swami" is
> missing, then people would suspect something is wrong. You have to put
> something else there just to cover up the gap.
> He invented "Maharishi." He is not even a rishi; rishi means "seer," and
> maharishi means "great seer." He can't even see beyond his nose. All he can
> do when you ask him relevant questions is giggle. In fact, I will call him
> "Swami Gigglananda," that will fit him perfectly. That giggling is not
> something respectable, it is really a strategy to avoid questions. He cannot
> answer any question.
> I have met him, just by chance, and in a strange place -- Pahalgam. He was
> leading a meditation camp there, and so was I. Naturally my people and his
> were meeting each other. They first tried to bring him to my camp, but he
> made so many excuses: that he had not time, he wanted to but it would not be
> possible.
> But he said, "One thing can be done: you can bring Bhagwan here so that my
> time and my scheduled work is not disturbed. He can speak with me from my
> stage." And they agreed.
> When they told me I said, "This is stupid of you; now I will be in
> unnecessary trouble. I will be in front of his crowd. I don't have to worry
> about the questions; the only problem is that it will not be right for the
> guest to hit his host, especially before his own crowd. And once I see him I
> cannot refrain from hitting him; any decision I make not to hit him will be
> gone."
> But they said, "We have promised."
> I said, "Okay. I'm not bothered, and I am ready to come." It was not very
> far, just a two-minutes' walk away. You just had to get in the car, and then
> get out again, that was the distance. So I said, "Okay, I will come."
> I went there, and as I had expected he was not there. But I don't care about
> anything; I started the camp -- and it was his camp! He was not there, he
> was just trying to avoid me as much as he could. Somebody must have told him
> because he was staying in the hotel just nearby. He must have heard what I
> was saying from his room. I started hitting him hard, because when I saw
> that he was not there, I could hit him as much as I wanted to, and enjoy
> doing it. Perhaps I hit him too hard and he could not stay away. He came out
> giggling.
> I said, "Stop giggling! That is okay on American television, it won't do
> here with me!" And his smile disappeared. I have never seen such anger. It
> was as if that giggling was a curtain, hiding behind it all that was not
> supposed to be there.
> Naturally it was too much for him, and he said, "I have other things to do,
> please excuse me."
> I said, "There is no need. As far as I am concerned you never came here. You
> came for the wrong reasons, and I don't come into it at all. But remember, I
> have got plenty of time."
> Then I really hit him because I knew he had gone back into his hotel room. I
> could even see his face watching from the window. I even told his people:
> "Look! This man says he has much work to do. Is this his work? Watching
> somebody else work from his window. He should at least hide himself, just as
> he hides behind his giggle."
> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is the most cunning of all the so-called spiritual
> gurus. But cunningness succeeds; nothing succeeds like cunningness. If you
> fail, it simply means you have come across somebody who is more cunning than
> you -- but cunningness still succeeds. He never mentions his village, but I
> remembered because I was going to tell you about an incident. This incident
> had some concern with his village, and my story is always going in all
> directions."
> http://www.oshoworld.com/onlinemag/june2004/htm/glimpses.asp
>
> Bob Hopeless