Sam's idea of Rebezar
Doug Marman
Here's my take on this.
I think we have become a culture that puts way too much attention on whether
something is True or False, as if we MUST fit things into one box or the
other.
Thus, if Rebazar Tarzs is a real being, then he seems to take on a human
context and physical sense for us. If he isn't real, then it seems like the
whole idea of Rebazar dissolves into some kind of a phatasm of imagination.
I believe that most of Life doesn't fit into either of these two categories.
For example, is Sam true or false? Who would even ask this question? What
sense does it even make to ask this question?
We seem so afraid of believing in something that might not be real - that we
don't see how we have been hoodwinked into thinking that things can be
categorized into real and unreal. In fact, it seems to me that it is more
important to know what Rebazar Tarzs means to us inwardly, or in whatever
way they we find him or his image.
This whole idea that religious images are simply the creation of our
imaginations, is quite frankly a creation of our imaginations. If we are
fooling ourselves, we are fooling ourselves for good reasons, because there
are some very real realities that we are hanging our imaginations onto. We
often embellish way too much, but I believe underneath every imagination -
even what seem like complete delusions - there is real meaning.
Rather than trying to decide whether it is true or false, I think it is far
more helpful to find what it really means.
Doug.
"Sam" <Sam@Be&Do.or.g> wrote in message
news:%6X49.1849$XX6....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> Rebezar does not exist as anything but a thought construct. People saying
> that he does are merely projecting a fiction upon the mind for some
comfort
> that there exists some guardian angel who comes to teach us.
>
> People do not make up these true lies other than out of love for another
> soul, so that they too will experience this comfort and reassurance.
>
> These myths are all done out Love, you'd better believe it.
>
> People, create a space in your home or elsewhere that you project as Holy.
> Go there daily to contemplate. Call forth the love of the Holy Spirit, the
> ECK, whatever you wish to call it, and contemplate and imagine the truth
> according to your life. Make this space your sacred ground. I promise you,
> whatever you stamp as Holy, IS.
>
> Love,
> Sam
>
>
Sam
Doug Marman wrote in message ...
The question remains: "How do we explain the unexplainable?"
It will drive many to madness, but Samology teaches this profound truth
about Love. There is such great light at the end of the spectrum. It is such
a smashing of light that cannot precieved by anything but a postive mind and
heart.
Brave indeed are those who DARE to love.
My poet friend keeps warning me to not give away my best to newsgroups, but
out of sheer love for understanding, I find it hard to resist.
When I no longer post here, I hope that all will at least remember Sam, the
Soul who bent over backwards to express LOVE for all, regardless of any
belief system.
Sam
P.S.: And you, Doug, I am so happy to announce you as a true brother and
loving soul of spirit. You understand. Beddar is one other such soul.
arelurker
science and religion, offered the viewpoint that religions would have to
give up their myths and science would have to give up their insistence
of not considering inner subjective experiences and models as useful to
ascertaining what is true.
Lurk
Doug Marman
Thanks. You put it very beautifully. Only those who DARE to love can see
into that Light.
What a great gift you have given.
Doug.
"Sam" <Sam@Be&Do.or.g> wrote in message
news:61559.1929$XX6....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Doug Marman
Thanks for sharing that. I find it interesting. I used to think the same way
about myths until I realized that it is actually impossible to live without
them. Then I saw that I had been living in this myth of living without
myths.
Then I saw that what was really the problem was the unconscious acceptance
of myths, as a substitute for truth.
I rag on science a lot, because it has become so unquestioningly accepted by
our popular culture, just like many religious beliefs. But overall I think
science is unfolding in a positive direction.
Lately, my thoughts about science are that it needs a better idea of its own
limitations, and the inherent limitations of its own processes when trying
to approach the subject of consciousness. I think that is a step that it can
recognize and understand, which might then lead to the understanding that
Wilber is looking for science to reach.
Thanks.
Doug.
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3D5508D2...@charter.net...
Sam
Garland C. Peck wrote in message <3d552cad_1@aeinews.>...
> Even thought what you say is definilty true, how do you maintain the
>attitude that it is holy, when you know that by posting it here, It will
>be severely attacked and degraded by others.
>
> I don't nessassarly agree more with either the Eck or non Eck side of
>the argument. But most people here have already made up their minds and
>are not about to change it.
>
> I think both sides are right and wrong in given areas, and know that
>nither side would agree with my point of view. Do you take into acount
that
>what you think is holy will mean nothing to those who read your message
even
>before you post it.
>
I think a good way to view it is from the POV of giving without worry how it
will be taken. In giving, we recieve. The light doesn't always shine with
the same brilliance, but by giving we are assured a path of ever-increasing
awareness of the Main Thing.
Sam
Sam
Doug Marman wrote in message ...
>Sam,
>
>into that Light.
>
>What a great gift you have given.
>
>Doug.
>
>
Seddar
Sam
Sam wrote in message <8Fc59.1998$XX6....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
>
>Garland C. Peck wrote in message <3d552cad_1@aeinews.>...
>> Even thought what you say is definilty true, how do you maintain the
>>attitude that it is holy, when you know that by posting it here, It will
>>be severely attacked and degraded by others.
>>
>> I don't nessassarly agree more with either the Eck or non Eck side of
>>the argument. But most people here have already made up their minds and
>>are not about to change it.
>>
>> I think both sides are right and wrong in given areas, and know that
>>nither side would agree with my point of view. Do you take into acount
>that
>>what you think is holy will mean nothing to those who read your message
>even
>>before you post it.
>>
>I think a good way to view it is from the POV of giving without worry how
it
>will be taken. In giving, we recieve. The light doesn't always shine with
>the same brilliance, but by giving we are assured a path of ever-increasing
>awareness of the Main Thing.
>
>Sam
>
From the writings of Stephen R. Covey:
Look at the weaknesses of others with compassion, not accusations. It's not
what they are not doing or should be doing that's the issue. The issue is
your own chosen response to the situation and what you should be doing. If
you start to think that the problem is "out there," stop yourself. That
thought is the problem.
People who excercise their embryonic freedom day after day will, little by
little, expand that freedom. People who do not will find that it withers
until they are literally "being lived." They are acting out of scripts
written by parents, associates, and society.
Samuel Johnson observed: "The fountain of content must spring up in the
mind, and he who hath so little knowledge of human nature as to seek
happiness but by his own disposition, will waste his life in fruitless
efforts and multiply the grief he proposes to remove."
While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the
consequences of our actions. Consequences are governed by natural law.
For those filled with regret, perhaps the most needful excercise of
proactivity is to realize that past mistakes are also out there in the
Circle of Concern. We can't recall them, we can't undo them, we can't
control the consequences that came as a result.
The proactive approach to a mistake is to acknowledge it instantly, correct
and learn from it. This literally turns a failure into a success. "Success,"
said IBM founder T.J. Watson, "is on the far side of failure."
But not to acknowledge a mistake, not to correct it and learn from it, is a
mistake of a different order. It usually puts a person on a self-decieving,
self-justifying path, often involving rationalizations (rational lies) to
self and others. This second mistake, this cover-up, empowers the first,
giving it disproportionate importance, and causes far deeper injury to self.
It is not what others do or even our own mistakes that hurt us the most; it
is our response to those things. Chasing after the poisonous snake that
bites us will only drive the poison through our entire system. It is far
better to take measures immediately to get the poison out.
What I'm suggesting here is this: Those who feel that their past religion
harmed them, continuing that thinking is not going to make things better for
oneself and others. Unfair labling and broad-brushing of religions as
harmful "cults", when in fact they are not, is doing a great diservice.
Ultimately, the only way through this is to champion the good and positive
that is. Criticizing Eckankar or any religion in only a negative light will
not help anybody in the long run. Detractors have to realize this if they
are to truly help people understand. People need to reach higher, to true
universality. In that universality lies the recipe for resolution. It
contains the riddle of the subjective and the objective. It allows us to do
powerful paradigm shifts, so that we can see through another's eyes. It
gives us the power of sound reasoning, to adjust our lenses, to focus and
refocus, and continuously keep learning and teaching, effectively.
We have to find some way to activate our beliefs to melt away mental
mountains, rid ourselves of inertia and bring back the passion that ignite
our dreams, our own potent force. The way to do this is by being open to new
answers, always. If tomorrow brings yet another new understanding, go for
it. Do not hang onto the old view. Embrace the new view and expect that that
view will likely fade away in time also to make room for yet another, more
expansive view. It's an expanding universe. The scarcity mentality has to
go. The Holy Spirit cannot be boxed in. The ways it flows into people's
hearts and minds is ever so variable, ever so versatile.
arelurker
Doug Marman wrote:
>
> Lurk,
>
> Thanks for sharing that. I find it interesting. I used to think the same way
> about myths until I realized that it is actually impossible to live without
> them. Then I saw that I had been living in this myth of living without
> myths.
>
> Then I saw that what was really the problem was the unconscious acceptance
> of myths, as a substitute for truth.
>
> I rag on science a lot, because it has become so unquestioningly accepted by
> our popular culture, just like many religious beliefs. But overall I think
> science is unfolding in a positive direction.
>
> Lately, my thoughts about science are that it needs a better idea of its own
> limitations, and the inherent limitations of its own processes when trying
> to approach the subject of consciousness. I think that is a step that it can
> recognize and understand, which might then lead to the understanding that
> Wilber is looking for science to reach.
One of the better arguments as put forth by Wilber was that science
already uses interior models in the form of mathematics and such to
arrive at their truths. There is no reason why science should dismiss other
interior models spiritual people use to arrive at truth, since they
themselves also use such models as tools. However, Wilber does say that
any interior model will not do. It has to adhere to basic scientific
process of the formation of an injunction, having a means of testing,
repeatability, while considering falsifibility. In others words, he is
tying to get spiritual people to be more scientific when using these
interior models and trying to get scientist to venture into using
subjective interior models with their science.
Like scientist, I think spiritual people need to become aware of their
limitations too. They need to conform their interior models with some
science process.
Lurk
arelurker
But that is exactly what eckankar does not do.
This literally turns a failure into a success. "Success,"
> said IBM founder T.J. Watson, "is on the far side of failure."
>
> But not to acknowledge a mistake, not to correct it and learn from it, is a
> mistake of a different order. It usually puts a person on a self-decieving,
> self-justifying path, often involving rationalizations (rational lies) to
> self and others.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when referring to eckankar.
Eckankar leadership, Harold, has not acknowledged the mistakes and
eckist are on a self justifying path often involving rationalizations to
self and others.
This second mistake, this cover-up, empowers the first,
> giving it disproportionate importance, and causes far deeper injury to self.
> It is not what others do or even our own mistakes that hurt us the most; it
> is our response to those things. Chasing after the poisonous snake that
> bites us will only drive the poison through our entire system. It is far
> better to take measures immediately to get the poison out.
>
> What I'm suggesting here is this: Those who feel that their past religion
> harmed them, continuing that thinking is not going to make things better for
> oneself and others.
What a bunch of poser bullshit. One can take the position that eckankar
harmed them and take responsibility for allowing the harm to come to them.
Unfair labeling and broad-brushing of religions as
> harmful "cults", when in fact they are not, is doing a great diservice.
Eckankar by criteria lists standards is a cult. Maybe you don't like the
idea that you belonged to a cult, eh?
> Ultimately, the only way through this is to champion the good and positive
> that is.
Quite the opposite oh neophyte one.
> Criticizing Eckankar or any religion in only a negative light will
> not help anybody in the long run.
Depends on the context. But in the context of this newsgroup where only
glowing reviews by eckists, and considering that negative opinions of
eck masters or eckankar are not tolerated within eckankar, it is more
than appropriate and helpful to express critical and negative views.
Your stance is kind of hypocritical too since you are being critical of
people who feel their past religion has harmed them. You seem to see the
value of you being critical and expressing it here. But when others do,
you get all pious.
Detractors have to realize this if they
> are to truly help people understand. People need to reach higher, to true
> universality. In that universality lies the recipe for resolution.
I tell you sonny boy, people are not going to go higher anywhere
ignoring the negative and looking towards the positive.
It
> contains the riddle of the subjective and the objective. It allows us to do
> powerful paradigm shifts, so that we can see through another's eyes. It
> gives us the power of sound reasoning, to adjust our lenses, to focus and
> refocus, and continuously keep learning and teaching, effectively.
Keep parroting this stuff and maybe it will osmotically be translated
into your behavior.
>
> We have to find some way to activate our beliefs to melt away mental
> mountains, rid ourselves of inertia and bring back the passion that ignite
> our dreams, our own potent force. The way to do this is by being open to new
> answers, always. If tomorrow brings yet another new understanding, go for
> it. Do not hang onto the old view. Embrace the new view and expect that that
> view will likely fade away in time also to make room for yet another, more
> expansive view. It's an expanding universe. The scarcity mentality has to
> go. The Holy Spirit cannot be boxed in. The ways it flows into people's
> hearts and minds is ever so variable, ever so versatile.
Are you trying to see how many clichés you can cram into one paragraph here.
Why don't you come up with some ideas of your own.
Lurk
Doug Marman
DOUG RESPONDS:
I agree with this. I think we should try to build our interior models with
some scientific process. That, by the way, means being willing to tear it
all down when we learn something new. It means verifying what seems to be
true by testing it. It also means recognizing that all models are incomplete
and faulty in some way. It is not the model that we should rest our hopes
on, but rather simply use those models to help us understand.
But then I'm the son of an engineer, and have always loved science. For
others, using the artistic process, or the process of economy, or the
process of psychology is the way to go.
Doug.
Doug Marman
Actually, what Covey and Sam are referring to here is something that only a
person can really do. Organizations can't really acknowledge, correct or
learn anything. It might appear that they can make a show of official public
apology or acknowledgment, but it is really people that do all of the
acknowledging, correcting and learning. The organization is simply made up
of people. I think this is often forgotten.
Also, I believe if you look at the people you will see that a great many
have acknowledged, corrected and learned many things. And this
acknowledging, correcting and learning is something that we all should be
doing for ourselves, rather than worrying about whether the other guys are
doing it.
I do agree that it can be a very healing experience for the leaders of an
organization to come out and acknowledge, correct and learn. That was one
reason I wrote my book, since I felt it was the right thing to do. However,
I feel it is much more important for everyone to realize that this whole
power of acknowledgment, correcting and learning is something that they can
and should do all by ourselves. The more we need it to be done by outer
authorities or groups, the more power we are giving to those outer
authorities over us. The moment we realize this, we don't need to worry
about whether groups or organizations appear to be learning or not learning,
because we know that we can learn with or without them.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't urge our leaders to do the right thing,
but that self-responsibility is far more important than the public display
by leaders in a group. And no matter what a leader may do, there will always
be those who don't think they've done enough. That's just another sign that
people aren't taking responsibility for what they should do but prefer to
focus on what others should be doing.
Doug.
Sam
Doug Marman wrote in message ...
>
>others, using the artistic process, or the process of economy, or the
>process of psychology is the way to go.
>
>Doug.
>
different lenses. I prefer story and pictures mostly. It's alway been this
way for me.
Honestly, from what I've seen at this newsgroup, looking at the whole from
only the psychological frame of reference is not healthy. Pure psychology is
just too damn narrow.
I think this explains Lurk's narrow-mindedness.
Lurk, don't get mad now, little boy. Har har har.........
Sam
arelurker
Organizations are made up of leaders too, Doug. And when the leader
happens to enjoy an authoritarian base of power, such a leader sets the
tone, establishes the values for the org culture. If Harold chooses to
not directly deal Paul's transgression and obfuscates, then he is
setting the tone for the rest of the leaders and membership as it gets
filtered down.
A member has no authority or power to offer a public apology to a author
or estate Paul violated.
So I question what I'm seeing as your attempt to frame that problem as
nebulous so as to keep Harold from being accountable.
>
> This doesn't mean that we shouldn't urge our leaders to do the right thing,
> but that self-responsibility is far more important than the public display
> by leaders in a group. And no matter what a leader may do, there will always
> be those who don't think they've done enough. That's just another sign that
> people aren't taking responsibility for what they should do but prefer to
> focus on what others should be doing.
Or, it could be a sign that the person is sincerely uncomfortable with
supporting or being a part of an org that only gives lip service to
encroaching upon other people's property. You can't always assume
unhealthy motives for people who disagree with whether Harold has done
enough. That's the old trick of turning it around on the questioner and
attributing unhealthy motives when questioning Harold.
Harold has made decisions about Paul's transgressions and has chosen not
to offer apologies. All we've seen is the plagiarized "The Far Country"
taken off the market without explanation in the late nineties, almost
seventeen years after Harold took over and knew of Paul's plagiarism.
How can someone take responsibility for Harold's decision? It is a
practice of self responsibility to openly question Harold's decisions.
To stand up and say what is wrong is wrong. To ask Harold to put the
rest the controversy by addressing the issue with a little more than
astral library stories and how Paul was a great compiler. Harold made
mistakes all those years and compounds them each year he does not deal
with them.
Lurk
Doug Marman
That's exactly the point I was making in the first and second sentences of
my paragraph above.
>
> A member has no authority or power to offer a public apology to a author
> or estate Paul violated.
First of all, I don't hear of any "estates" who feel they were violated. I
don't even think that is the issue.
Step back and look at this a little more objectively. Martin Luther King has
now been found to have plagiarized in a number of his academic papers, as
well as some of his famous speeches. Some people were very upset to find
this out, but I don't see black speakers, or even the family of King, being
asked to apologize for what he did. Secondly, I don't see anyone making the
bogus claims that estates were violated. This is about plagiarism, not about
copyright infringement. It's a question of authorship, not ownership. The
issue isn't that someone was violated, the issue is that we thought King
wrote those papers and speeches, when in fact he borrowed some of it.
King, from what I've heard, had a higher percentage of plagiarism than Paul
Twitchell. And King did it in his academic writings, where plagiarism is a
much bigger deal. Still, we find news just recently to further honor the man
and his achievements.
If King were alive, I do think that most people would expect him to
apologize or offer a good explanation. Same with Paul Twitchell if he were
alive.
>
> So I question what I'm seeing as your attempt to frame that problem as
> nebulous so as to keep Harold from being accountable.
You're a broken record, Lurk. You are right to question what you are seeing,
because you are seeing things that aren't there.
What I was doing was empowering people to deal with this themselves, without
having to depend upon the leader to solve it for them. Harold is going to do
what he thinks is the right and the responsible thing to do. That's his
choice, not mine. I have no need or desire to shift Harold's responsibility.
You can go ahead and complain to him if you don't think he is doing the
right thing, and you can accuse all ECKists as well if that gets you off,
but that is basically your problem to work out and not mine.
Paul is responsible for what Paul did, and Harold for what he does. I did
what I thought was right by writing my book, where I address the whole thing
openly.
>
> >
> > This doesn't mean that we shouldn't urge our leaders to do the right
thing,
> > but that self-responsibility is far more important than the public
display
> > by leaders in a group. And no matter what a leader may do, there will
always
> > be those who don't think they've done enough. That's just another sign
that
> > people aren't taking responsibility for what they should do but prefer
to
> > focus on what others should be doing.
>
> Or, it could be a sign that the person is sincerely uncomfortable with
> supporting or being a part of an org that only gives lip service to
> encroaching upon other people's property. You can't always assume
> unhealthy motives for people who disagree with whether Harold has done
> enough. That's the old trick of turning it around on the questioner and
> attributing unhealthy motives when questioning Harold.
You guys have so worked up this issue that you can't recognize it is only
about plagiarism. You have tried to turn it into some kind of criminal
offense, rather than a breach of ethics, and it looks like you've talked
yourselves into this illusion. This issue is not about encroaching on other
people's property. Intellectual property is a matter of copyright
infringement, not plagiarism.
It's clear that you can't simply accept what the issue is, but have to
amplify it into something else. Why do you think Harold is supposed to solve
this problem for you? This is your problem and no one is going to be able to
work this out for you but you.
But I'll tell you what. Let's both try to be more objective about this. I
think that you are suggesting Harold, along with all the ECKists on ARE,
aren't treating this issue properly. Based on what you just said, it appears
that the root cause of this is that you seem to think this was a matter of
estates being violated. As far as I'm concerned, it is a matter of
plagiarism. So, that seems to explain why we feel different treatments are
acceptable.
In other words, let's not confuse what is going on here. If you disagree on
what the issue is, then let's talk about that. But don't act as if I'm
supposed to treat this case as one of stolen property or other criminal acts
when I see it as a case of plagiarism.
You might want to prove your case about the violation of estates first,
before you go on accusing others of not treating the matter properly.
>
> Harold has made decisions about Paul's transgressions and has chosen not
> to offer apologies. All we've seen is the plagiarized "The Far Country"
> taken off the market without explanation in the late nineties, almost
> seventeen years after Harold took over and knew of Paul's plagiarism.
> How can someone take responsibility for Harold's decision? It is a
> practice of self responsibility to openly question Harold's decisions.
> To stand up and say what is wrong is wrong. To ask Harold to put the
> rest the controversy by addressing the issue with a little more than
> astral library stories and how Paul was a great compiler. Harold made
> mistakes all those years and compounds them each year he does not deal
> with them.
I believe you are making mistakes as well, Lurk, by amplifying your
accusations. Why don't we start there? Let's resolve what the issue is
first, and then perhaps we can agree on what the proper treatment should be.
Personally, I felt the matter should be treated more openly, which is why I
wrote my book. I don't think Harold is responsible for what Paul did, but I
do think we should be open about the matter. I believe that Harold feels
that he has addressed the matter, but I realized that I preferred a more
open approach. So I wrote my book. If you like the more open approach, then
you can raise the discussion in an open forum such as this. I don't see huge
transgretions at stake here, so I feel the matter is a minor difference of
approaches. I don't see that Harold needs to apologize for Paul's
plagiarisms, since it is plagiarism we are talking about, not violation of
estates. When have you ever heard of someone apologizing for someone else's
plagiarism?
Why aren't you demanding that David Lane apologize for his errors? Doesn't
"what is wrong is wrong" apply to critics as well? Don't you feel
responsible for David Lane's materials, since you have supported him? Should
you be apologizing for his errors? I'm only asking these questions as an
exercise in objectivity. Personally, I think David will apologize if he
feels he has done something wrong. I see no need to try to publicly
humiliate him for not doing something else. I feel the same way about
Harold.
Doug.
Tom Leafeater
The following are excerpts from the dialogue above by Doug Marmon in his reply
to Lurk, with some comments added by Leaf:
First of all, I don't hear of any "estates" who feel they were violated. I
don't even think that is the issue.
Step back and look at this a little more objectively. Martin Luther King has
now been found to have plagiarized in a number of his academic papers, as
well as some of his famous speeches. Some people were very upset to find
this out, but I don't see black speakers, or even the family of King, being
asked to apologize for what he did. Secondly, I don't see anyone making the
bogus claims that estates were violated. This is about plagiarism, not about
copyright infringement. It's a question of authorship, not ownership. The
issue isn't that someone was violated, the issue is that we thought King
wrote those papers and speeches, when in fact he borrowed some of it.
[Leaf writes: Just a few notes on Doug's comments: Doug compares Martin Luther
King, a civil rights advocate, and even David Lane, a philosophy professor,
with Paul Twitchell, a self-described Messiah. One expects a great deal more
from Messiahs, especially when such Messiahs claim to represent the highest and
most direct path to God.
Martin Luther King wanted to help the disenfranchised blacks who were suffering
from decades of cruelty and prejudice. Twitchell, on the other hand, felt that
the intolerable conditions blacks were enduring were earned karmic conditions,
and never spoke out against racism or prejudice, and never went on record in
favor of racial equality, though the sixties, the years during which he founded
Eckankar, were embroiled with such issues.
Do any of these considerations make King's plagiarism excusable? I would say
not. But King truly worked unselfishly for those Twitchell remained silent
about, having left them to suffer their karmic conditions without a word of
compassion springing from his lips. King was not thought of as the perfect
vessel of God, but merely an eloquent and effective orator and organizer for
the civil rights movement. Twitchell's claim to fame was his assertion that he
was the Mahanta, the bearer of the Rod of Power. The plagiarism is one
indication, among many others, that Twitchell was a fraud, a label that tends
to reflect badly on any claims to be THE representative of God, the Word made
Flesh, as he put it. King, on the other hand, really was an extraordinarily
effective organizer and spokesman for the civil rights movement. He was the
real thing, despite any plagiarism he committed. In my view, the issue isn't
merely the fact that Twitchell plagiarized, though plagiarism is hardly an
endearing proclivity on his part, but rather that the plagiarism, combined with
several other revealing facts about Twtchell's creation of Eckankar, point
strongly to the conclusion many have made that Twtichell was not what he
claimed to be. In other words, it adds up to a hoax, a sham, a fabrication on
the part of Twitchell.
We all know, based on the facts of history, what Martin Luther King was, and
also, perhaps, what he was not. The facts are easy to ascertain and to accept,
in his case. And what about Twitchell? People obviously do not find the facts
easy to face, and even less easy to accept.
Doug also, quite sneakily I think, tries to distinguish plagiarism from
ownership issues, as if these are separate issues. This is a ludicrous stretch
to make, since the definition of plagiarism in the minds of most is the use of
the writings of another without permission, that is, stealing another's labors
and calling it one's own:
Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
Date: 1716
transitive senses
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use
(another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive senses
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product
derived from an existing source
Of course it involves the issue of ownership, by its very definition. It is an
infringement upon the plagiarist's readership as well as an infringement upon
the true author(s). But Doug plays loose and sloppy with this issue, as if it
is some kind of unsolvable ethical conundrum or arcane philosophical riddle of
small importance or significance. Doug tries to redefine plagiarism, altering
the meaning to something far different from the commonly accepted definition.
Read on, to see more examples of this.]
King, from what I've heard, had a higher percentage of plagiarism than Paul
Twitchell. And King did it in his academic writings, where plagiarism is a
much bigger deal. Still, we find news just recently to further honor the man
and his achievements.
If King were alive, I do think that most people would expect him to
apologize or offer a good explanation. Same with Paul Twitchell if he were
alive.
You guys have so worked up this issue that you can't recognize it is only
about plagiarism. You have tried to turn it into some kind of criminal
offense, rather than a breach of ethics, and it looks like you've talked
yourselves into this illusion. This issue is not about encroaching on other
people's property. Intellectual property is a matter of copyright
infringement, not plagiarism.
It's clear that you can't simply accept what the issue is, but have to
amplify it into something else. Why do you think Harold is supposed to solve
this problem for you? This is your problem and no one is going to be able to
work this out for you but you.
But I'll tell you what. Let's both try to be more objective about this. I
think that you are suggesting Harold, along with all the ECKists on ARE,
aren't treating this issue properly. Based on what you just said, it appears
that the root cause of this is that you seem to think this was a matter of
estates being violated. As far as I'm concerned, it is a matter of
plagiarism. So, that seems to explain why we feel different treatments are
acceptable.
In other words, let's not confuse what is going on here. If you disagree on
what the issue is, then let's talk about that. But don't act as if I'm
supposed to treat this case as one of stolen property or other criminal acts
when I see it as a case of plagiarism.
You might want to prove your case about the violation of estates first,
before you go on accusing others of not treating the matter properly.
I believe you are making mistakes as well, Lurk, by amplifying your
Rich
Sam <Sam@Be&Do.or.g> wrote:
Seddar has spoken!<G>
Excellent! Thanks Sam of the Main Thing.
`
` o
` |
` ~/|
` _/ |\
` / | \
` -/ | \
` _ /____|___\_
` (___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sam
Rich <*rsmith*@aloha.net> wrote in message ...
That darn Seddar...he's one heck of a preacher, eh? Seriously, on an
individual level, I don't see any other way out of some of life's mental
boxes but through accepting what we can't change and getting on with our own
lives and be a model of inspiration for others rather than a model for
fault-finding, moaning, and groaning. At some point, as critics, we have to
realize that, aside from giving criticism, there is little that can be done
outside of oneself. We can give our opinions, for what's they're worth - and
let the fruits of such criticisms grow where they may - preferably in one's
own garden.
Sam
arelurker
Do they even know they been violated?
And, is that how your regulate morality....by determining whether
someone knows.
>
> Step back and look at this a little more objectively. Martin Luther King has
> now been found to have plagiarized in a number of his academic papers, as
> well as some of his famous speeches. Some people were very upset to find
> this out, but I don't see black speakers, or even the family of King, being
> asked to apologize for what he did.
That's because they have the luxury to hide behind their blackness and
prior persecution and play the race card. Who want to fight that bullshit.
Secondly, I don't see anyone making the
> bogus claims that estates were violated. This is about plagiarism, not about
> copyright infringement. It's a question of authorship, not ownership. The
> issue isn't that someone was violated, the issue is that we thought King
> wrote those papers and speeches, when in fact he borrowed some of it.
Doug, we have discussed this copyright plagiarized thing too much over
the years so I don't really care to hash it out again. It is interesting
to note that you feel with regard to Twithchell's plagiarism and
possible copyright violation, that there is nothing to apologize for.
That speaks volumes about where you head is: moral relativism I think it
is called.
And it is not just the plagiarism issue, Paul also violated people's
trust when he told people that he had this and that spiritual experience
and these turned out to be other people's descriptions of their spiritual
experiences. That is lying and violating the trust he himself
cultivated with his students. Harold owes everyone an apology for
Twitchell's actions and for Harold's own cover up actions he had taken
over the years.
>
> King, from what I've heard, had a higher percentage of plagiarism than Paul
> Twitchell. And King did it in his academic writings, where plagiarism is a
> much bigger deal. Still, we find news just recently to further honor the man
> and his achievements.
>
> If King were alive, I do think that most people would expect him to
> apologize or offer a good explanation. Same with Paul Twitchell if he were
> alive.
>
> >
> > So I question what I'm seeing as your attempt to frame that problem as
> > nebulous so as to keep Harold from being accountable.
>
> You're a broken record, Lurk. You are right to question what you are seeing,
> because you are seeing things that aren't there.
>
> What I was doing was empowering people to deal with this themselves, without
> having to depend upon the leader to solve it for them.
Eckists have no authority to offer apologies to people Paul violated and
have no authority to apologize for Harold's deceptions. It is not their
problem it is Harold's.
Harold is going to do
> what he thinks is the right and the responsible thing to do. That's his
> choice, not mine. I have no need or desire to shift Harold's responsibility.
> You can go ahead and complain to him if you don't think he is doing the
> right thing, and you can accuse all ECKists as well if that gets you off,
> but that is basically your problem to work out and not mine.
And eckists openly disagreeing with his choices and lack of leadership on
this issue is a way for people to take responsibility, not disempowering
themselves as you are suggesting. Standing in one's truth on this issue,
despite all the messages of bad things happening to eckists who do so,
is being true to one's self.
>
> Paul is responsible for what Paul did, and Harold for what he does. I did
> what I thought was right by writing my book, where I address the whole thing
> openly.
Upon reflection here, your book, compared to the cultic atmosphere and
strong cultic thinking of most eckist, does appear to be "addressing"
issues. Within the ranks of ecknakar it is probably viewed as
radical since very few talk about or write about such things. Hell
they're are probably not allowed.
However, from the perspective of someone who is outside of the cultic
loop, your book reflects a low level of self honesty and seems to
obfuscate as much as it reveals. You admit things without really
admitting to them, and all the other slick forms of communication I've
been pointing out for years. You had a opportunity to bring new
information to the table but choose to spin Lane's research.
>
> >
> > >
> > > This doesn't mean that we shouldn't urge our leaders to do the right
> thing,
> > > but that self-responsibility is far more important than the public
> display
> > > by leaders in a group. And no matter what a leader may do, there will
> always
> > > be those who don't think they've done enough. That's just another sign
> that
> > > people aren't taking responsibility for what they should do but prefer
> to
> > > focus on what others should be doing.
> >
> > Or, it could be a sign that the person is sincerely uncomfortable with
> > supporting or being a part of an org that only gives lip service to
> > encroaching upon other people's property. You can't always assume
> > unhealthy motives for people who disagree with whether Harold has done
> > enough. That's the old trick of turning it around on the questioner and
> > attributing unhealthy motives when questioning Harold.
>
> You guys have so worked up this issue that you can't recognize it is only
> about plagiarism.
No, it is about honesty and trust and violating people's trust.
You have tried to turn it into some kind of criminal
> offense, rather than a breach of ethics, and it looks like you've talked
> yourselves into this illusion. This issue is not about encroaching on other
> people's property. Intellectual property is a matter of copyright
> infringement, not plagiarism.
It is encroaching upon other people's property when you take their
spiritual experiences and tell other people they are your spiritual
experiences and make profits from such lies. It is a violation of
people's boundaries for a guru to cultivate trust and then to lie to them.
>
> It's clear that you can't simply accept what the issue is,
What it is, or what you reframe it to be with all your cultic rationalizations?
but have to
> amplify it into something else. Why do you think Harold is supposed to solve
> this problem for you? This is your problem and no one is going to be able to
> work this out for you but you.
I point out how you try to turn it around on me and you continue to do
so. I guess it is compulsive thing, eh Doug?
It is not my problem that Paul violated people's trust and violated
other author's writing. And it is not my problem that Harold had tried
to cover that up over the years and made some serious ill advised
choices in terms of leadership.
I think it is important that others become aware of these aspects of
eckankar that are not talked about and are actively concealed. These are
important issues and reflect the quality and effectiveness of spiritual
instruction in
eckankar. A path of truth founded upon lies is important information to
know about a path before venturing on such path or while invested in the
path and remaining ignorant.
>
> But I'll tell you what. Let's both try to be more objective about this. I
> think that you are suggesting Harold, along with all the ECKists on ARE,
> aren't treating this issue properly. Based on what you just said, it appears
> that the root cause of this is that you seem to think this was a matter of
> estates being violated. As far as I'm concerned, it is a matter of
> plagiarism. So, that seems to explain why we feel different treatments are
> acceptable.
>
> In other words, let's not confuse what is going on here. If you disagree on
> what the issue is, then let's talk about that. But don't act as if I'm
> supposed to treat this case as one of stolen property or other criminal acts
> when I see it as a case of plagiarism.
Doug, it is not right for Paul to take other author's spiritual
experiences and pass them off as his own. Paul profited from these
words of other people's in many ways and Harold owes them an apology.
But I understand your position on this is morally relativistic and you
see nothing
wrong. That's fine, I just want to make sure that other eckists and new
people understand the level and type of moral relativism their stepping
into when they joining eckankar. Their are many other expressions of
this situational morality seen in eckankar which also gets translated
into violating people.
Leaf just related how one high initiate bilked someone out of money and
told them they didn't have to pay them back because they got it on the
inner that the person for whom they owed the money had owed them money
in a previous lifetime. A RESA was informed of this and this HI gets
promoted in the ranks of eckankar.
This is the kind of thing you are supporting for with your morally
relativistic arguments. This is the cultic thinking you are defending
and a part of wholeheartedly.
>
> You might want to prove your case about the violation of estates first,
> before you go on accusing others of not treating the matter properly.
Did Harold ever commission a study to find out the extent and scope of
Paul's plagiarism? A leader with character would have. I suspect he just
swept it under the rug.
The point being, as far as I know, Harold is not even aware of how many
authors Paul violated nor has assessed whether any economic impact
resulted. So you are basically asking me to do what Harold should do if
he practice what he preaches about being responsible.
>
> >
> > Harold has made decisions about Paul's transgressions and has chosen not
> > to offer apologies. All we've seen is the plagiarized "The Far Country"
> > taken off the market without explanation in the late nineties, almost
> > seventeen years after Harold took over and knew of Paul's plagiarism.
> > How can someone take responsibility for Harold's decision? It is a
> > practice of self responsibility to openly question Harold's decisions.
> > To stand up and say what is wrong is wrong. To ask Harold to put the
> > rest the controversy by addressing the issue with a little more than
> > astral library stories and how Paul was a great compiler. Harold made
> > mistakes all those years and compounds them each year he does not deal
> > with them.
>
> I believe you are making mistakes as well, Lurk, by amplifying your
> accusations. Why don't we start there? Let's resolve what the issue is
> first, and then perhaps we can agree on what the proper treatment should be.
You never grow tire of trying to make Paul and Harold's and your own
self dishonesty my problem. Oh well.
>
> Personally, I felt the matter should be treated more openly, which is why I
> wrote my book. I don't think Harold is responsible for what Paul did, but I
> do think we should be open about the matter.
If the current CEO of Exxon finds out that the former CEO made some bad
choices in the past and violated people in some way or another, which
becomes public during the current CEO tenure, do you not think it is
appropriate for the current CEO to not only apologize, but bend over
backwards to get to the truth? I do.
This CEO would not tell their employees or the public that it is not his
problem since he was not the CEO at the time. He would get laugh out of
his office for the absurdity of such a statement. That is how absurd
your statement is,
Doug. You are so steeped into the cultic thinking, it makes you stay
absurd things like this.
Maybe Sam, who read Covey, can tell us Covey's views on how modern
leaders have lost character.
I believe that Harold feels
> that he has addressed the matter, but I realized that I preferred a more
> open approach.
Just as I believe you think you have addressed the matter, but I prefer
a more open approach then what is contained in your book so I write
about it here on this newsgroup.
Again, I think it comes down to levels of self honesty and honesty with
others. I think any person with a high level of self honesty will see
Paul's behavior as violations of others and recognized his low self
honesty, will see Harold's behavior as a cover up and another level of
self dishonesty, and will see your book as yet another level of self dishonesty.
So I wrote my book. If you like the more open approach, then
> you can raise the discussion in an open forum such as this. I don't see huge
> transgretions at stake here, so I feel the matter is a minor difference of
> approaches.
But of course you do. That's the situational morality and the
rationalizations coming into play.
I don't see that Harold needs to apologize for Paul's
> plagiarisms, since it is plagiarism we are talking about, not violation of
> estates. When have you ever heard of someone apologizing for someone else's
> plagiarism?
I haven't in cultic groups really for they can do no wrong in their
minds and make up all kind of excuses and write absurd books to boot.
But I stand by my Exxon CEO analogy, Harold need to apologize for Paul's
behavior and violations and Harold need to apologize to every eckist
about his own poor leadership choices he has made over the years.
In other words, Harold needs to admit to his cultic behavior and take
responsibility for his part in creating eckankar the cult.
>
> Why aren't you demanding that David Lane apologize for his errors? Doesn't
> "what is wrong is wrong" apply to critics as well? Don't you feel
> responsible for David Lane's materials, since you have supported him? Should
> you be apologizing for his errors? I'm only asking these questions as an
> exercise in objectivity.
These are absurd questions because of what you try to equate: Paul and
Harold, the gurus who bill themselves as holding the highest
consciousness in the world violating a students trust, compare to some
unnamed error you think Lane made somewhere.
Personally, I think David will apologize if he
> feels he has done something wrong. I see no need to try to publicly
> humiliate him for not doing something else. I feel the same way about
> Harold.
Doug, Harold has had twenty years to deal with issue of Paul and choose
not to deal with it with courage and honesty. He has chosen to threaten
publishers from publishing a book to keep eckankar's dirty little
secretes from being placed in libraries when preventing Lane's library
edition from being published. Harold lacks character.
When someone like Harold takes advantage of others and the cultic flock
allows it, it sometimes requires radical action on the part of the
community to raise awareness of such issues to help the leader to get
more on an ethical track and to help the students understand how their
dependencies cause them to sit there and take the crap the Harold has
shoved down their throats over the years.
I understand it can be humiliating for a leader such as Harold, who has
a lot invested in keeping the perceptions of himself as some high
consciousness person who resides in such state 24/7, to admit to making
major mistakes, but it is necessary for all concerned.
Lurk
Sam
arelurker wrote in message <3D57BFD9...@charter.net>...
>
>Maybe Sam, who read Covey, can tell us Covey's views on how modern
leaders have lost character.
Well, Lurk, I'm not an expert on modern leaders and what they should or
shouldn't be doing, especially when I have little knowledge of what goes on
behind the scenes. I really haven't done enough study on modern leaders, for
that's not really my field of expertise. But I do champion Covey's
approach to responsible leadership and individual responsibilities at the
grassroots level, which is based on integrity and sound character. That's
about all the power I have on these matters regarding Eckankar. I can only
point out what I think is a good model to follow. If people wish to dispute
this model and interprete these principles in any other way, there is
nothing I can personally do about it. I'm glad I'm not the final judge over
these issues.
I have to say that Covey's writings has been very helpful to me in resolving
these issues for myself. Aside from pointing out the obvious, that's about
all I can do. I'm not involved with Eckankar nor the org, and have no wish
to belong.
I trust that people can come to their own conclusions about this. In the
end, the only one I can answer for is myself. As if anything I say would
make a difference anyway.
I've brought up all sorts of issues in the past and once the point is made I
see no further reasons to continue, for it just goes round and round and
round. I just don't care for personal attacks, so after stating what I
think, I prefer to let it go. I prefer to give people the benefit of the
doubt, and if they have something to learn yet from this, they'll learn in
their way, in their own time. My time here is limited, and I feel I've
already wasted far too much time at a.r.e.. I learned a lot here though and
if I were ever in a leadership position, I would hope to stick to these
principles Covey talks about.
Obviously, you have a lot more energy invested in this, and when all is said
and done, I can't speak for you either.
This is what Covey has taught me. When a compromise can't be reached, we go
for no deal. In other words, we detach ourself from the situation, otherwise
we may be arguing over the same thing for another 10 years without making
any real progress.
This is what sticking to principles is about in my view. A man changed
against his will, is still not changed.
Good Luck, and all the best to you. That's about all I can add to this. I
just don't care to invest any more energies into this. Every minute I spend
posting here is time lost in making my own livihood. Still, the lessons have
been worth it, I think.
Sam
David
Thanks, Sam. As aspect of this dear to me is that the best folks
in ANY religion have more in common with each other than with many
others of their
same religion. If a Sufi lives a life of love, how can I not feel
brotherly
towards him.If an ECKist mentalizes the teachings and does not
practice them
in daily life, I can wish him well, but will be closer to the Sufi.
> >
> > We have to find some way to activate our beliefs to melt away
> mental
> > mountains, rid ourselves of inertia and bring back the passion
> that ignite
> > our dreams, our own potent force. The way to do this is by being
> open to new
> > answers, always. If tomorrow brings yet another new understanding,
> go for
> > it. Do not hang onto the old view. Embrace the new view and expect
> that that
> > view will likely fade away in time also to make room for yet
> another, more
> > expansive view. It's an expanding universe. The scarcity mentality
> has to
> > go. The Holy Spirit cannot be boxed in. The ways it flows into
> people's
> > hearts and minds is ever so variable, ever so versatile.
You are suggesting that spiritual courage is essential to
keeping
focused on the Main Thing. The courage to let go of pet ideas, pet
notions, pet opinions, to see the hugeness of Spirit.
Love, David
Sam
David wrote in message ...
I think it's unavoidable that we will mentalize certain aspects of any
teachings, especially as they become habitual and ritualized. But what are
rituals for anyway? Rituals have been part of human beings' makeup forever,
for they provide comfort and reassurance, and isn't this what we are all
looking for? We all need this comfort, no matter how we look at it. Even in
agnostic and atheist beliefs there lie comfort and myth - yes it does, when
we closely examine. We all need some explanation just what the heck we're
about.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, one of the most brilliant authors around in modern
times made this very apparent to me.
I really do encourage people to read this man's books.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Csikszentmihalyi&btnG=Goog
le+Search&meta=
>> >
>> > We have to find some way to activate our beliefs to melt away
>> mental
>> > mountains, rid ourselves of inertia and bring back the passion
>> that ignite
>> > our dreams, our own potent force. The way to do this is by being
>> open to new
>> > answers, always. If tomorrow brings yet another new understanding,
>> go for
>> > it. Do not hang onto the old view. Embrace the new view and expect
>> that that
>> > view will likely fade away in time also to make room for yet
>> another, more
>> > expansive view. It's an expanding universe. The scarcity mentality
>> has to
>> > go. The Holy Spirit cannot be boxed in. The ways it flows into
>> people's
>> > hearts and minds is ever so variable, ever so versatile.
>
> You are suggesting that spiritual courage is essential to
>keeping
>focused on the Main Thing. The courage to let go of pet ideas, pet
>notions, pet opinions, to see the hugeness of Spirit.
> Love, David
Yes. I'm suggesting that rather than argue about who's right or wrong, let's
discuss the Main Thing, The Holy Spirit, The ECK. But I know that will not
happen anytime soon here at a.r.e, for I know how people's minds work and
how mental blocks get in the way. But we gotta keep trying, right?
Sam
Rich
Sam <Sam@Be&Do.or.g> wrote in message
Actually, to me the above sounded more like a common sense
philosophy based on spiritual truth.
> Seriously, on an
> individual level, I don't see any other way out of some of life's
mental
> boxes but through accepting what we can't change and getting on
with our own
> lives and be a model of inspiration for others rather than a model
for
> fault-finding, moaning, and groaning.
Well I see lots of ways out, but your way is one of thoses that
works for me.
> At some point, as critics, we have to
> realize that, aside from giving criticism, there is little that
can be done
> outside of oneself. We can give our opinions, for what's they're
worth - and
> let the fruits of such criticisms grow where they may - preferably
in one's
> own garden.
That's were the roots are. When our weeds encroach on other peoples
gardens, we are the ones that will eventually have to take
responsibility anyway.
`
Doug Marman
> > > LURK WROTE:
> > > Organizations are made up of leaders too, Doug. And when the leader
> > > happens to enjoy an authoritarian base of power, such a leader sets
the
> > > tone, establishes the values for the org culture. If Harold chooses to
> > > not directly deal Paul's transgression and obfuscates, then he is
> > > setting the tone for the rest of the leaders and membership as it gets
> > > filtered down.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > That's exactly the point I was making in the first and second sentences
of
> > my paragraph above.
> > > LURK WROTE:
> > > A member has no authority or power to offer a public apology to a
author
> > > or estate Paul violated.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > First of all, I don't hear of any "estates" who feel they were violated.
I
> > don't even think that is the issue.
> LURK WROTE:
> Do they even know they been violated?
>
> And, is that how your regulate morality....by determining whether
> someone knows.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Whoa, nellie. You are making the accusation that estates have been violated.
It is up to you to prove your case. I'd say the fact that not even one
"estate" has come forward saying that they have been violated doesn't help
prove your point one whit.
So, what kind of theft of property is this that leaves the people stolen
from with no knowledge at all they have been robbed, even 30 years later?
Well, perhaps this is why plagiarism is not a crime, and has never been a
crime in any country in known human history.
I agree completely that the matter of plagiarism falls within the arena of
ethics, because we believe it is important for an author to credit their
sources. This is not about the violation of estates, but about making clear
who the source is.
That is why, as far as I can see, that no estates have felt violated. But
you made the accusation, so it is up to you to prove your claim. I'm just
saying I don't see the evidence.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Step back and look at this a little more objectively. Martin Luther King
has
> > now been found to have plagiarized in a number of his academic papers,
as
> > well as some of his famous speeches. Some people were very upset to find
> > this out, but I don't see black speakers, or even the family of King,
being
> > asked to apologize for what he did.
> LURK WROTE:
> That's because they have the luxury to hide behind their blackness and
> prior persecution and play the race card. Who want to fight that
bullshit.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Okay, then name me one case where family members, or group members of a
deceased author who plagiarized have been expected to apologize for the
author's plagiarism?
Think about it for a moment. When priests abuse children, and the church
doesn't handle the matter, the church is then expected to apologize for its
own behavior. But in this case the victims were clearly harmed, and it is
the church's own behavior that is requiring the apology.
Now we go to the matter of plagiarism. No one is expected to apologize for
someone else's plagiarism because in fact no victims have been harmed. No
estates have been violated. The issue of plagiarism is simply that the
author did not properly credit his sources. This is considered a breach of
ethics. The proper response for others is to openly discuss the facts and
make others aware of them. No one should be expected to apologize for such a
thing but the original author.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Secondly, I don't see anyone making the
> > bogus claims that estates were violated. This is about plagiarism, not
about
> > copyright infringement. It's a question of authorship, not ownership.
The
> > issue isn't that someone was violated, the issue is that we thought King
> > wrote those papers and speeches, when in fact he borrowed some of it.
> LURK WROTE:
> Doug, we have discussed this copyright plagiarized thing too much over
> the years so I don't really care to hash it out again. It is interesting
> to note that you feel with regard to Twithchell's plagiarism and
> possible copyright violation, that there is nothing to apologize for.
> That speaks volumes about where you head is: moral relativism I think it
> is called.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Make up names to call me, if you like, but you simply see it differently and
we disagree. It has nothing to do with moral relativism. I'm making my
points clearly, and none of them have even approached the issue of moral
relativism.
I think it speaks volumes that you cannot simply treat the matter as
plagiarism, but insist on inflating and amplifying the matter into
violations of estates. How does it look when you are the one making all this
fuss about the violation of estates and not even one estate has stepped
forward to say they have felt violated?
I am not trying to say that plagiarism is a non issue. Quite the contrary. I
think it is the real issue, and that is what we should be discussing. But it
does indeed speak volumes that ex-members cannot simply accept it, but
insist on making it sound like all of Paul's writings were plagiarized, or
estates have been violated, or Paul is guilty of criminal theft - none of
which are what the facts suggest. Why not stick with the actual facts and
the matter of plagiarism? Why this uncontrollable desire to inflate it?
By the way, I'm really asking this question because I think there are
interesting answers to the question. It is not rhetorical to me.
> LURK WROTE:
> And it is not just the plagiarism issue, Paul also violated people's
> trust when he told people that he had this and that spiritual experience
> and these turned out to be other people's descriptions of their spiritual
> experiences. That is lying and violating the trust he himself
> cultivated with his students. Harold owes everyone an apology for
> Twitchell's actions and for Harold's own cover up actions he had taken
> over the years.
DOUG RESPONDS:
That just doesn't make sense to me. If trust is the issue, and I think this
is much more of the issue than the matter of plagiarism, then the issue is
with the one who broke the trust.
Harold trying to apologize for Paul's actions would accomplish nothing. He
can't apologize for Paul's relationship with his students. The act of
apology, if it is to be more than mere show, can only be true when we
apologize for our own errant acts. This is nowhere more true than with
matters of trust.
If your father breaks his trust with you, can your mother apologize for him?
If the President of the United States breaks his trust with the citizens, do
we expect the next President to apologize for him?
Sure, sometimes such things are done and passed off as apologies, but these
aren't really apologies. Those are acts of sympathy.
It was not the organization who wrote Paul's books. Paul wrote them. If we
don't think Paul wrote properly, or we feel he misled us, then our issue is
with Paul. This is no different than any issue we might have with any other
author or teacher or leader.
But it is clear to me that to most of the ex-members who feel justified in
lauching a continuing attack of criticisms against ECKANKAR, this issue of
trust goes much deeper than what Paul wrote or the way in which he wrote. It
is very much like the break-up of a marriage. The hurt can go very deep, but
the examples given for the transgretions of the other person just don't
sound as serious to an outsider.
I think there are much more useful discussions if we were to focus on the
actual issues without inflating them or denying them. However, it is
extremely difficult for divorcees to discuss their ex-spouse without
inflating their cases against them, or denying their own involvements.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > King, from what I've heard, had a higher percentage of plagiarism than
Paul
> > Twitchell. And King did it in his academic writings, where plagiarism is
a
> > much bigger deal. Still, we find news just recently to further honor the
man
> > and his achievements.
> >
> > If King were alive, I do think that most people would expect him to
> > apologize or offer a good explanation. Same with Paul Twitchell if he
were
> > alive.
> > > LURK WROTE:
> > > So I question what I'm seeing as your attempt to frame that problem as
> > > nebulous so as to keep Harold from being accountable.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > You're a broken record, Lurk. You are right to question what you are
seeing,
> > because you are seeing things that aren't there.
> >
> > What I was doing was empowering people to deal with this themselves,
without
> > having to depend upon the leader to solve it for them.
> LURK WROTE:
> Eckists have no authority to offer apologies to people Paul violated and
> have no authority to apologize for Harold's deceptions. It is not their
> problem it is Harold's.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Then it shouldn't bother them, if it isn't their problem. If it isn't their
problem, they should be able to shrug the whole thing off and wish Harold
good luck and go their own way.
But, in fact, it is their problem - they just want to blame Harold or Paul,
or some other outer authority who they think is taking away their power,
when in fact they are giving their power away to any external authority they
can find.
This is the trust that is really being broken. Their trust in a father and
mother who is supposed to take care of them.
In fact, such trust is wrongly placed if it is placed in any other that God.
It is only God that deserves that kind of trust. Our feelings that others
have broken our trust weigh so heavily on us because we lose trust in God.
With trust in God, these wounds heal and we find love hiding in our pain,
like the rose surrounded by its thorns.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Harold is going to do
> > what he thinks is the right and the responsible thing to do. That's his
> > choice, not mine. I have no need or desire to shift Harold's
responsibility.
> > You can go ahead and complain to him if you don't think he is doing the
> > right thing, and you can accuse all ECKists as well if that gets you
off,
> > but that is basically your problem to work out and not mine.
> LURK WROTE:
> And eckists openly disagreeing with his choices and lack of leadership on
> this issue is a way for people to take responsibility, not disempowering
> themselves as you are suggesting. Standing in one's truth on this issue,
> despite all the messages of bad things happening to eckists who do so,
> is being true to one's self.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Standing in one's truth is always something we should do. That is one reason
I felt it was better to write my book as an individual, rather than
expecting the organization to write something official. That is why it is
good to have discussions about these things.
But if we really believe in the value of standing in one's truth, then we
must also show respect for each other when we are each standing in our
truths. Ridicule of others, or calling them names, shows no respect for this
principle of standing in one's truth.
What I see here on this newsgroup is lots of people, including ECKists and
ex-ECKists standing in their own truth and expressing how they see it.
However, this is not accepted by the other side, for some reason. This
suggests that there is still way too much group thought going on, as if
there is only ONE truth to stand in.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Paul is responsible for what Paul did, and Harold for what he does. I
did
> > what I thought was right by writing my book, where I address the whole
thing
> > openly.
> LURK WROTE:
> Upon reflection here, your book, compared to the cultic atmosphere and
> strong cultic thinking of most eckist, does appear to be "addressing"
> issues. Within the ranks of ecknakar it is probably viewed as
> radical since very few talk about or write about such things. Hell
> they're are probably not allowed.
>
> However, from the perspective of someone who is outside of the cultic
> loop, your book reflects a low level of self honesty and seems to
> obfuscate as much as it reveals. You admit things without really
> admitting to them, and all the other slick forms of communication I've
> been pointing out for years. You had a opportunity to bring new
> information to the table but choose to spin Lane's research.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Then perhaps my book is only of benefit to those who are ECKists. I don't
think that's so bad.
I don't see you outside the cultic loop, however. In fact, it seems to me
that you have barely begun the real process of understanding this subject. I
remember in one of Idries Shah's talks where he makes the observations that
people who come to him from previous religious groups can never seem to
accept their own blindnesses. They always thought they knew better than the
people they had left behind. He finally reached a point where he thought it
was possibly a hopeless matter, as if they had been permanently damaged.
That is one reason he focused his teachings towards those who had never felt
the desire to be part of a religious group before.
You fit into this same category, thinking you've escaped something, without
realizing you show the same behaviors. Perhaps Shah is right and the matter
is hopeless. I, however, believe people can always learn how to learn. The
problem is that we must first realize how much we have to learn.
One of the things that the Sufis seemed to know very well, which is part of
what I've been trying to share, is that we learn and help the growth of
learning through a process with each other. This is not an activity that is
individual, but is actually work done as a group and based on group
interactions.
> > > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > > This doesn't mean that we shouldn't urge our leaders to do the right
> > thing,
> > > > but that self-responsibility is far more important than the public
> > display
> > > > by leaders in a group. And no matter what a leader may do, there
will
> > always
> > > > be those who don't think they've done enough. That's just another
sign
> > that
> > > > people aren't taking responsibility for what they should do but
prefer
> > to
> > > > focus on what others should be doing.
> > > LURK WROTE:
> > > Or, it could be a sign that the person is sincerely uncomfortable with
> > > supporting or being a part of an org that only gives lip service to
> > > encroaching upon other people's property. You can't always assume
> > > unhealthy motives for people who disagree with whether Harold has done
> > > enough. That's the old trick of turning it around on the questioner
and
> > > attributing unhealthy motives when questioning Harold.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > You guys have so worked up this issue that you can't recognize it is
only
> > about plagiarism.
> LURK WROTE:
> No, it is about honesty and trust and violating people's trust.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Yes, that is the big issue, but the only thing that happened was plagiarism.
We go through reactions of trust, of doubts about intentions, and questions
about our inner relationships with the ECK Masters, but all that actually
happened was plagiarism.
This is exactly why it seems so hard to stop the inflation, because we are
mixing the two things up.
It is like the crisis that some children go through when they discover their
parents have been lying to them about Santa Claus. The real issue is the
sudden realization that all adults have been secretly looking down on them
as little children, and how completely they had believed in a fairy tale.
But the crisis goes much deeper than that, because it suggests that all of
what they have been taught by adults has been a lie. That the whole world in
fact is not what it seems or what they believe it to be.
This is not the result of being told about Santa Claus. This is the result
of being carried away on unquestioning belief, and the realization that had
not really learned for ourselves what was true.
I think the plagiarism issue raises the same sort of questions, but these
are good questions and important questions to address.
If you want to cry like victims of broken trust, go right ahead, but I
believe the real issues are much more significant spiritual lessons than
that.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > You have tried to turn it into some kind of criminal
> > offense, rather than a breach of ethics, and it looks like you've talked
> > yourselves into this illusion. This issue is not about encroaching on
other
> > people's property. Intellectual property is a matter of copyright
> > infringement, not plagiarism.
> LURK WROTE:
> It is encroaching upon other people's property when you take their
> spiritual experiences and tell other people they are your spiritual
> experiences and make profits from such lies. It is a violation of
> people's boundaries for a guru to cultivate trust and then to lie to them.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Now, whose property is being encroached on?
A minute ago you were talking about estates being violated. I assumed you
were talking about the estates of other authors. However, as I've pointed
out, not a single author has come forward to complain.
Now it sounds as if you are suggesting that plagiarism is an act of taking
the property of the readers? It is violating the boundaries of the readers
because they believed the author? Is that right?
Is that what encroaching on other people's property means? Not as far as I'm
concerned. This is just another case of trying to amplify this issue into
something more.
The whole principle of encroaching on other's property came up because it is
considered one of the basic principles that lies beneath the laws that
mankind has learned. Why try to twist this meaning, when it is so clear?
This in fact shows us why plagiarism has never been considered a crime in
any country - because it is NOT about encroaching on the property of others.
It is about properly crediting sources.
I'm beginning to think that it is obvious that plagiarism itself is not a
big enough issue to explain all that is felt, nor can it explain how deeply
these reactions can be felt. So then, rather than trying to pretend
plagiarism is something bigger, why aren't we trying to discover what this
is really all about?
Isn't this about loss of faith? Aren't we talking about people who no longer
believe what they once believed? Isn't this about the feelings of
embarrassment for once believing something that these people now believe is
foolish?
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > It's clear that you can't simply accept what the issue is,
> LURK WROTE:
> What it is, or what you reframe it to be with all your cultic
rationalizations?
DOUG RESPONDS:
What it is. Plagiarism is not encroaching on the property of the readers.
This is not about the violation of the estates of other writers, since none
have complained. It is not about criminal behavior, nor has the law been
broken. It is cultic rationalization to continue to try amplifying it into
something else.
Plagiarism is not really the issue. It simply isn't that important. The
embarrassment is the issue. The loss of faith is the issue. The rejection of
everything one once believed, and the anger and resentment felt towards
anyone who contributed toward the years that are now felt to have been
wasted. The loss of idealism and the closeness of a group that may have once
been dear.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > but have to
> > amplify it into something else. Why do you think Harold is supposed to
solve
> > this problem for you? This is your problem and no one is going to be
able to
> > work this out for you but you.
> LURK WROTE:
> I point out how you try to turn it around on me and you continue to do
> so. I guess it is compulsive thing, eh Doug?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Pointing out that we can and should resolve our own problems, rather than
blaming someone else is a compulsive thing?
Whatever.
> LURK WROTE:
> It is not my problem that Paul violated people's trust and violated
> other author's writing. And it is not my problem that Harold had tried
> to cover that up over the years and made some serious ill advised
> choices in terms of leadership.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Prove that Harold tried to cover anything up. You are making a claim here,
so prove your case. I have seen nothing that Harold has done to cover
anything up. More amplifications.
Talk about compulsive things.
However, if it is indeed not your problem, as you keep saying, then why does
it bother you? It seems to me that when something bothers me it is in fact
my problem. If it bothers you, it is your problem. That's how it seems to
me.
> LURK WROTE:
> I think it is important that others become aware of these aspects of
> eckankar that are not talked about and are actively concealed. These are
> important issues and reflect the quality and effectiveness of spiritual
> instruction in
> eckankar. A path of truth founded upon lies is important information to
> know about a path before venturing on such path or while invested in the
> path and remaining ignorant.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I agree that there is avoidance, but calling it actively concealing or a
cover-up is simply more amplification and distortion. Why make it more than
it is? Let's call it avoidance. If this avoidance is an important issue to
address, then so is this issue of amplification. They are two sides of the
same coin, as I see it.
The desire to amplify the issues is really only another way of avoiding the
real issues.
I do agree that all the facts that can be known are helpful for people to
know up front. This is simply basic information, but it helps us to have
this basic information. So, that's one of the benefits of this newsgroup, we
can bring out some of the facts of the early days, since so much has been
forgotten already.
But once we've brought these things out, there is no need to act as if this
was the whole problem. We never know the full story about even our own
closest friends, or even our parents in many cases. This isn't due to
cover-ups.
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > But I'll tell you what. Let's both try to be more objective about this.
I
> > think that you are suggesting Harold, along with all the ECKists on ARE,
> > aren't treating this issue properly. Based on what you just said, it
appears
> > that the root cause of this is that you seem to think this was a matter
of
> > estates being violated. As far as I'm concerned, it is a matter of
> > plagiarism. So, that seems to explain why we feel different treatments
are
> > acceptable.
> >
> > In other words, let's not confuse what is going on here. If you disagree
on
> > what the issue is, then let's talk about that. But don't act as if I'm
> > supposed to treat this case as one of stolen property or other criminal
acts
> > when I see it as a case of plagiarism.
> LURK WROTE:
> Doug, it is not right for Paul to take other author's spiritual
> experiences and pass them off as his own. Paul profited from these
> words of other people's in many ways and Harold owes them an apology.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Your first sentence describes the issue of plagiarism. But saying Harold
owes an apology makes no sense. Harold is not resposible for Paul's actions.
If you mean that Harold could express regret - well, yes, he could do that
as much as you or I could. Anyone can regret that Paul did plagiarize.
Harold can't do this for Paul, however. And since Harold didn't do what Paul
did, he can't express regret as if he did it.
I do not think, however, that the issue is whether Paul profited from the
words of others as you seem to be suggesting. That's another misnomer. We in
fact all profit from the words of others. If Paul had properly credited
those authors, he still would have profited from them. This is not a matter
of profits taken from others.
Nor is it a matter of apologizing for what others have done.
> LURK WROTE:
> But I understand your position on this is morally relativistic and you
> see nothing
> wrong.
DOUG RESPONDS:
This is no better than lying, Lurk, to take the words of others and twist
them into things they have never said. If you have a problem comprehending
what I have written, then let me know and I'll be glad to explain, but I
have never come even close to make this a matter of moral relativism - no
matter how much you might want this to be true.
Here you are distorting and lying about what I've said, and yet I know you
will never apologize. You do this over and over again, yet never apologize -
and yet you have the nerve to say that Harold should apologize for something
that Paul once did.
Why not apologize for what you have just done, Lurk, and have done numerous
times? I'm not suggesting that you intentionally misrepresented what I said,
but nonetheless you have done so.
But rather than apologize, I am sure you will come back to argue that you
are right and know what I meant better than I did. And then, without even a
shadow crossing your consciousness, you will turn back to saying how Harold
should apologize for something he didn't even do.
Ay carumba!
> LURK WROTE:
> That's fine, I just want to make sure that other eckists and new
> people understand the level and type of moral relativism their stepping
> into when they joining eckankar. Their are many other expressions of
> this situational morality seen in eckankar which also gets translated
> into violating people.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Seems to be more like a problem of distortion, or perhaps merely sincere
misunderstanding, but certainly comes nothing close to what you are
suggesting.
Once again, we are no longer dealing with things as they are. Not what I
said, but rather amplifying it into something else. Not what actually
happened, but blowing it up into something altogether different.
> LURK WROTE:
> Leaf just related how one high initiate bilked someone out of money and
> told them they didn't have to pay them back because they got it on the
> inner that the person for whom they owed the money had owed them money
> in a previous lifetime. A RESA was informed of this and this HI gets
> promoted in the ranks of eckankar.
>
> This is the kind of thing you are supporting for with your morally
> relativistic arguments. This is the cultic thinking you are defending
> and a part of wholeheartedly.
DOUG RESPONDS:
You are a very sad case, Lurk. I am in no way supporting anything of the
sort.
If you cared at all for other people standing in their truth, you wouldn't
make such false accusations.
I see no purpose in further dialogue when you get abusive like this.
Doug.
Michael
"Sam" <Sam@Be&Do.or.g> wrote in message
I wouldn't call Lurk so much as Narrow Minded as One Track minded.
Anything anti-Eckankar is good... Anything pro-Eckankar is bad. Simple,
really <G>
The lack of a whole-some perspective attracts like to the hive of
discontent. and the detractor world incarnates itself again and again
despite so many of the "facts" that underpin the belief system being
demonstratably arguable, if not plain wrong.
Doug's book, just this on its own destroys a greater part of the entire
detractor myth ... Common Sense also tells us that people are not stupid,
and that as Eckankar is not a controlling mind scanning cult, as has been
claimed, people come and go as they will.
In the end... It's all rubarb
But that can be nice with a little sugar and yogurt <G>
Love
Michael
>
>
>
>
>
arelurker
Actually the idea of estates came up when people realized the original
authors of the works Paul plagiarized were no longer alive and the
copyrights to these were pass on to relatives such as in Neville's case. I
think it was Chuck who wrote Neville's representatives and they say
they were not aware of Paul's plagiarism. The violation would be against
the original author and since he original author is not alive, it
behooves those who violated their materials to apologize. That's what
adults do. But the children of the cultic world like to pretend and use
their imaginations that there are no violations and no one needs to apologize.
>
> So, what kind of theft of property is this that leaves the people stolen
> from with no knowledge at all they have been robbed, even 30 years later?
Because Paul was a good thief he or his successor should not be held
responsible? I love
your ethics.
> Well, perhaps this is why plagiarism is not a crime, and has never been a
> crime in any country in known human history.
>
> I agree completely that the matter of plagiarism falls within the arena of
> ethics, because we believe it is important for an author to credit their
> sources. This is not about the violation of estates, but about making clear
> who the source is.
>
> That is why, as far as I can see, that no estates have felt violated. But
> you made the accusation, so it is up to you to prove your claim. I'm just
> saying I don't see the evidence.
Doug you speak as though what Paul did was not copyright violation. I
speak as though what Paul did was copyright violation. We hashed this
out before and it comes down to the fact that we both have our opinions,
and Paul has not been proven in a court of law nor has he been
exonerated in a court of law of copyright violations.
So Paul is either a criminal if proven to violate copyright laws. Or, he
is a sneaky plagiarist who built himself up with other people's writing
and spiritual experiences. Or at the very least, he is a total and
complete failure by his own standards he set forth for eck masters.
None of these options are something to support or be proud of, yet year
after year you come here and support by making excuses for such low
ethics and deceitful behavior.
It has not been determined that Paul did not violate copyright laws.
But even still, nobody wants their books used "in whole or in part, in
any manner without the expressed written consent." That is what is on
the front of books. Paul violated that either legally and/or ethically.
Paul put that on the front of his book too.
You copyrighted your book as well.
See my comments above.
>
> I am not trying to say that plagiarism is a non issue. Quite the contrary. I
> think it is the real issue, and that is what we should be discussing. But it
> does indeed speak volumes that ex-members cannot simply accept it, but
> insist on making it sound like all of Paul's writings were plagiarized,
It is still undetermined how much he plagiarized, but it looks bad for
Paul. Check out Siva Ri's post to Rich about the amount of plagiarism.
or
> estates have been violated,
Paul violated the original authors who are dead and have passed their
rights on to relatives.
> or Paul is guilty of criminal theft - none of
> which are what the facts suggest.
Copyright violation has not been proven in a court of law, but I think
it could have. that fact that Paul did not get caught before he died is
no consolation.
> Why not stick with the actual facts and
> the matter of plagiarism? Why this uncontrollable desire to inflate it?
It is not inflating an issue to expect the current leader to apologize
to copyright holders for the material Paul illegally/improperly took
used.
Doug, it seems to me you are perpetually trying to minimize Paul's
violations and at the same time you try to turn it around and accuse me inflating.
>
> By the way, I'm really asking this question because I think there are
> interesting answers to the question. It is not rhetorical to me.
>
> > LURK WROTE:
> > And it is not just the plagiarism issue, Paul also violated people's
> > trust when he told people that he had this and that spiritual experience
> > and these turned out to be other people's descriptions of their spiritual
> > experiences. That is lying and violating the trust he himself
> > cultivated with his students. Harold owes everyone an apology for
> > Twitchell's actions and for Harold's own cover up actions he had taken
> > over the years.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> That just doesn't make sense to me. If trust is the issue, and I think this
> is much more of the issue than the matter of plagiarism, then the issue is
> with the one who broke the trust.
Paul originally broke the trust and Harold has continued violating
eckists by supporting and perpetuating the lies.
>
> Harold trying to apologize for Paul's actions would accomplish nothing. He
> can't apologize for Paul's relationship with his students.
I know he is too arrogant to bring himself to admitting Paul or himself
did anything wrong.
The act of
> apology, if it is to be more than mere show, can only be true when we
> apologize for our own errant acts. This is nowhere more true than with
> matters of trust.
>
> If your father breaks his trust with you, can your mother apologize for him?
Weak comparison, does not reflect Paul's and Harold's situation.
> If the President of the United States breaks his trust with the citizens, do
> we expect the next President to apologize for him?
Weak comparison, does not reflect Paul's and Harold's situation.
>
> Sure, sometimes such things are done and passed off as apologies, but these
> aren't really apologies. Those are acts of sympathy.
>
> It was not the organization who wrote Paul's books. Paul wrote them.
Harold kept them in print and has not corrected any of the lies. Can you
point to some statement of Harold's where he says Paul's spiritual
experiences are not his but other authors? So Harold is very much in
collusion with Paul violating people.
If we
> don't think Paul wrote properly, or we feel he misled us, then our issue is
> with Paul.
Paul's not around and the person who perpetuated Paul lies is Harold.
Harold took on Paul's lies and use them for his own benefit. Harold
choose dishonesty over honesty. So he not only needs to apologize for
Paul, but for his own dishonesty.
This is no different than any issue we might have with any other
> author or teacher or leader.
>
> But it is clear to me that to most of the ex-members who feel justified in
> lauching a continuing attack of criticisms against ECKANKAR, this issue of
> trust goes much deeper than what Paul wrote or the way in which he wrote. It
> is very much like the break-up of a marriage. The hurt can go very deep, but
> the examples given for the transgretions of the other person just don't
> sound as serious to an outsider.
>
> I think there are much more useful discussions if we were to focus on the
> actual issues without inflating them or denying them. However, it is
> extremely difficult for divorcees to discuss their ex-spouse without
> inflating their cases against them, or denying their own involvements.
Whether there are exaggerated emotions involved with people who find out
how they have been violated by Paul and Harold does not exonerate Harold
from doing the right thing and apologizing to the people he has violate
over the years. Yes exmembers have to get over the hurt and lick their
wounds and then come back and let their truth been know. Harold must see
that there are consequences to his dishonesty, otherwise he will
continue is dishonest ways in his little kingdom he has built. Sometimes
it takes outsiders pressing hard to make people like Harold aware of how
he has violated people's trust.
Not necessarily true. People can object, protest, raise awareness about
Paul's and Harold's dishonesty without it being a personal problem. It
is called making the world a better place to live...giving service.
>
> But, in fact, it is their problem - they just want to blame Harold or Paul,
> or some other outer authority who they think is taking away their power,
> when in fact they are giving their power away to any external authority they
> can find.
>
> This is the trust that is really being broken. Their trust in a father and
> mother who is supposed to take care of them.
Perhaps, this makes it even more insidious when you consider Paul and
Harold cultivate this dependency with many people who, more than likely,
have been violated by their own parents and then turn around and violate
them again. This is what you are supporting Doug.
Unfortunately, your book does not exonerate Paul or Harold from
responsibility of their poor leadership choices and dishonesty. You're
book, in a nutshell is simply trying to make their dishonesty alright,
and it is not.
Yeah what a noble cause: fortifying people's rationalizations and
excuses so they can continue to live in a cultic la la land and be
abused by dishonest moral relativist. What a great service you are
providing.
>
> I don't see you outside the cultic loop, however. In fact, it seems to me
> that you have barely begun the real process of understanding this subject. I
> remember in one of Idries Shah's talks where he makes the observations that
> people who come to him from previous religious groups can never seem to
> accept their own blindnesses. They always thought they knew better than the
> people they had left behind. He finally reached a point where he thought it
> was possibly a hopeless matter, as if they had been permanently damaged.
> That is one reason he focused his teachings towards those who had never felt
> the desire to be part of a religious group before.
>
> You fit into this same category, thinking you've escaped something, without
> realizing you show the same behaviors. Perhaps Shah is right and the matter
> is hopeless. I, however, believe people can always learn how to learn. The
> problem is that we must first realize how much we have to learn.
These are broad generalization about me being cultic and serve no
purpose. At least when I point out your cultic behavior or thinking, I
have enough respect to point to something specifically you said instead
of quoting one of the sufi guys and acting like you are relating
something profound.
No Doug, Paul passing other people's spiritual experiences off as his
own is possibly copyright violation, plagiarism and it is a violation of
his student's trust all at the same time.
>
> It is like the crisis that some children go through when they discover their
> parents have been lying to them about Santa Claus. The real issue is the
> sudden realization that all adults have been secretly looking down on them
> as little children, and how completely they had believed in a fairy tale.
> But the crisis goes much deeper than that, because it suggests that all of
> what they have been taught by adults has been a lie. That the whole world in
> fact is not what it seems or what they believe it to be.
>
> This is not the result of being told about Santa Claus. This is the result
> of being carried away on unquestioning belief, and the realization that had
> not really learned for ourselves what was true.
>
> I think the plagiarism issue raises the same sort of questions, but these
> are good questions and important questions to address.
>
> If you want to cry like victims of broken trust, go right ahead, but I
> believe the real issues are much more significant spiritual lessons than
> that.
Doug it is not playing the victim to establish boundaries in one's self
and saying that it is wrong that Paul and Harold violated my trust.
That's a sign of someone who respects their self enough to stand up and
let people know that it is not alright for gurus to lie and abuse ones
trust. That's taking responsibility for one's self, not playing a
victim.
Although I do grant relevance to your notion that people can play victim
to a guru's abuse and focus and concentrate on Paul or Harold instead of
facing their own issues.
So people need to take responsibility for their part and gurus need to
take responsibility for their own part. And if the gurus, choose not to,
then they'll suffer the consequences of boundaried people calling
attention to their deceptions and looking out for the unboundary people
whom they victimize.
>
> > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > You have tried to turn it into some kind of criminal
> > > offense, rather than a breach of ethics, and it looks like you've talked
> > > yourselves into this illusion. This issue is not about encroaching on
> other
> > > people's property. Intellectual property is a matter of copyright
> > > infringement, not plagiarism.
>
> > LURK WROTE:
> > It is encroaching upon other people's property when you take their
> > spiritual experiences and tell other people they are your spiritual
> > experiences and make profits from such lies. It is a violation of
> > people's boundaries for a guru to cultivate trust and then to lie to them.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Now, whose property is being encroached on?
The intellectual property of the authors. People write of their personal
spiritual experiences and along comes Paul, who decides he can make some
money if he builds himself up as a guru authority by telling people all
the wonderful spiritual experience he never had.
>
> A minute ago you were talking about estates being violated. I assumed you
> were talking about the estates of other authors. However, as I've pointed
> out, not a single author has come forward to complain.
That nobody has complain does not make it alright Doug.
>
> Now it sounds as if you are suggesting that plagiarism is an act of taking
> the property of the readers?
No Doug, my comment was about how Paul encroached on the authors and in
Addition, violated the trust of his students. Two distinct points and I
introduced them earlier that way. Perhaps you forgot or maybe you saw
this as an opportunity to do your smoke and mirror dance.
> It is violating the boundaries of the readers
> because they believed the author? Is that right?
Yes.
>
> Is that what encroaching on other people's property means? Not as far as I'm
> concerned. This is just another case of trying to amplify this issue into
> something more.
This is a case of you twisting what I said.
>
> The whole principle of encroaching on other's property came up because it is
> considered one of the basic principles that lies beneath the laws that
> mankind has learned. Why try to twist this meaning, when it is so clear?
> This in fact shows us why plagiarism has never been considered a crime in
> any country - because it is NOT about encroaching on the property of others.
> It is about properly crediting sources.
>
> I'm beginning to think that it is obvious that plagiarism itself is not a
> big enough issue to explain all that is felt, nor can it explain how deeply
> these reactions can be felt. So then, rather than trying to pretend
> plagiarism is something bigger, why aren't we trying to discover what this
> is really all about?
No body is trying to pretend plagiarism is bigger. The violating
people's trust is part of the plagiarism.
>
> Isn't this about loss of faith? Aren't we talking about people who no longer
> believe what they once believed? Isn't this about the feelings of
> embarrassment for once believing something that these people now believe is
> foolish?
These are some of the issues that are involved when people find out Paul
plagiarized and because people realized he plagiarized other people's
spiritual experiences, they can certainly feel a loss of faith, feeling
embarrassed from being duped, etc. So what you don't think Paul or
Harold have anything to do with these feelings?
>
> > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > It's clear that you can't simply accept what the issue is,
>
> > LURK WROTE:
> > What it is, or what you reframe it to be with all your cultic
> rationalizations?
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> What it is. Plagiarism is not encroaching on the property of the readers.
You misunderstood my comment above and now you run with false
representation of what I said. I never said plagiarism is encroaching on
the property of the readers, you did.
> This is not about the violation of the estates of other writers, since none
> have complained. It is not about criminal behavior, nor has the law been
> broken. It is cultic rationalization to continue to try amplifying it into
> something else.
>
> Plagiarism is not really the issue. It simply isn't that important. The
> embarrassment is the issue. The loss of faith is the issue. The rejection of
> everything one once believed, and the anger and resentment felt towards
> anyone who contributed toward the years that are now felt to have been
> wasted. The loss of idealism and the closeness of a group that may have once
> been dear.
The same thing people feel when they have been duped by a con man. The
Mark has to work through these emotions and understand how their own
greed contributed to being conned. But doing so does not make the con
man any less of a con man. It is incumbent upon that citizens who have
been bilked, to raise awareness about how their own greed and the con
man's sociopathic nature led to being conned and to help others from
being conned.
And there are many people in eckankar who are not even aware they have
been conned and duped thanks to the current con man named Harold.
How does it feel defending a con man Doug?
>
> > > DOUG WROTE:
> > > but have to
> > > amplify it into something else. Why do you think Harold is supposed to
> solve
> > > this problem for you? This is your problem and no one is going to be
> able to
> > > work this out for you but you.
>
> > LURK WROTE:
> > I point out how you try to turn it around on me and you continue to do
> > so. I guess it is compulsive thing, eh Doug?
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Pointing out that we can and should resolve our own problems, rather than
> blaming someone else is a compulsive thing?
Yes, when the problem is not ours, but the con man Harold. When Harold
deceives his students that is is problem. And it is okay to point that
out to him. Otherwise he'll continue to lie unchallenged.
>
> Whatever.
>
> > LURK WROTE:
> > It is not my problem that Paul violated people's trust and violated
> > other author's writing. And it is not my problem that Harold had tried
> > to cover that up over the years and made some serious ill advised
> > choices in terms of leadership.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Prove that Harold tried to cover anything up. You are making a claim here,
> so prove your case. I have seen nothing that Harold has done to cover
> anything up. More amplifications.
Go read the eck web site on the history. Can you point to a statement
there or anywhere in the textual material that has Harold stating that
Paul's spiritual experiences were other authors spiritual experiences?
Hell for that matter, as Joe likes to point out, can you point to some
Harold statement that admits Paul plagiarized? Nobody has come up with
anything yet, so it is safe to conclude it doesn't exits.
That would be important information for someone to know, don't you think?
Not telling people is covering this important information up.
Threatening to sue critic's publishers to prevent a book from being
published and
distributed in libraries is covering the information up.
>
> Talk about compulsive things.
>
> However, if it is indeed not your problem, as you keep saying, then why does
> it bother you? It seems to me that when something bothers me it is in fact
> my problem. If it bothers you, it is your problem. That's how it seems to
> me.
It bothers me in the sense that I feel ecknankar is a misguided child
that needs firm parental instruction to take it to the next level of not
being a cult. I think Harold and his leaders have overlooked their own
parts in creating and maintaining eckankar cultic status. I try to
help...to do what I can.
>
> > LURK WROTE:
> > I think it is important that others become aware of these aspects of
> > eckankar that are not talked about and are actively concealed. These are
> > important issues and reflect the quality and effectiveness of spiritual
> > instruction in
> > eckankar. A path of truth founded upon lies is important information to
> > know about a path before venturing on such path or while invested in the
> > path and remaining ignorant.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> I agree that there is avoidance, but calling it actively concealing or a
> cover-up is simply more amplification and distortion. Why make it more than
> it is?
Threatening to sue a critic's publisher to prevent information being
distributed in libraries is more than avoidance Doug. Get real. That's
the understatement of the year.
> Let's call it avoidance.
I got an idea... Let's call it what it is: actively concealing.
If this avoidance is an important issue to
> address, then so is this issue of amplification. They are two sides of the
> same coin, as I see it.
>
> The desire to amplify the issues is really only another way of avoiding the
> real issues.
I think you pointing out that I'm amplifying the issues is your way of
avoiding the real issues. You don't have to deal with the fact that
Harold concealed information from eckists. You special way of denying, eh?
>
> I do agree that all the facts that can be known are helpful for people to
> know up front. This is simply basic information, but it helps us to have
> this basic information.
You call it basic information, I think the fact that Paul plagiarized
many books and pass his own experiences off as his own is important in
lots of respects. To call this basic information is downplaying this
issue to an absurd level.
So, that's one of the benefits of this newsgroup, we
> can bring out some of the facts of the early days, since so much has been
> forgotten already.
This is what Harold should be doing. Harold needs to get honest and
reveal the truth about Paul and stop threatening to sue critics. And if
he doesn't then he will be seen as a huckster like Paul.
>
> But once we've brought these things out, there is no need to act as if this
> was the whole problem. We never know the full story about even our own
> closest friends, or even our parents in many cases. This isn't due to
> cover-ups.
You still selling the idea that Harold did not cover up. Go ahead and
stay in that fantasy land, but I don't have to go there with you.
WE talked about this already.
>
> > LURK WROTE:
> > But I understand your position on this is morally relativistic and you
> > see nothing
> > wrong.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> This is no better than lying, Lurk, to take the words of others and twist
> them into things they have never said. If you have a problem comprehending
> what I have written, then let me know and I'll be glad to explain, but I
> have never come even close to make this a matter of moral relativism - no
> matter how much you might want this to be true.
>
> Here you are distorting and lying about what I've said, and yet I know you
> will never apologize. You do this over and over again, yet never apologize -
> and yet you have the nerve to say that Harold should apologize for something
> that Paul once did.
Doug your stance is moral relativism whether you want to own up to it or
not. My God, I can't believe you deny this.
>
> Why not apologize for what you have just done, Lurk, and have done numerous
> times? I'm not suggesting that you intentionally misrepresented what I said,
> but nonetheless you have done so.
>
> But rather than apologize, I am sure you will come back to argue that you
> are right and know what I meant better than I did. And then, without even a
> shadow crossing your consciousness, you will turn back to saying how Harold
> should apologize for something he didn't even do.
Yadda yadda.
>
> Ay carumba!
>
> > LURK WROTE:
> > That's fine, I just want to make sure that other eckists and new
> > people understand the level and type of moral relativism their stepping
> > into when they joining eckankar. Their are many other expressions of
> > this situational morality seen in eckankar which also gets translated
> > into violating people.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Seems to be more like a problem of distortion, or perhaps merely sincere
> misunderstanding, but certainly comes nothing close to what you are
> suggesting.
>
> Once again, we are no longer dealing with things as they are. Not what I
> said, but rather amplifying it into something else. Not what actually
> happened, but blowing it up into something altogether different.
Harold touting Mayberry's law of not encroaching on other's property
while the founder of eckankar did exactly that is moral relativism.
Also, Harold didn't take "The Far Country" of the market until 17 years
after his took power even after he knew of Paul's plagiarism. So Harold
was telling eckists to not encroach while he was actively concealing
Paul's encroachment and his own.
>
> > LURK WROTE:
> > Leaf just related how one high initiate bilked someone out of money and
> > told them they didn't have to pay them back because they got it on the
> > inner that the person for whom they owed the money had owed them money
> > in a previous lifetime. A RESA was informed of this and this HI gets
> > promoted in the ranks of eckankar.
> >
> > This is the kind of thing you are supporting for with your morally
> > relativistic arguments. This is the cultic thinking you are defending
> > and a part of wholeheartedly.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> You are a very sad case, Lurk. I am in no way supporting anything of the
> sort.
When you defend the moral relativism in eckankar you defend the
consequences of that relativism. I'm not saying you directly condone
such actions, but indirectly you do. You are supporting and defending an
environment that allows such things to occur.
>
> If you cared at all for other people standing in their truth, you wouldn't
> make such false accusations.
>
> I see no purpose in further dialogue when you get abusive like this.
Instead of allowing me to clarify, he runs away.
So much for Mr. Dialog self perception.
Lurk
Doug Marman
"Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020812035515...@mb-bg.aol.com...
>
> The following are excerpts from the dialogue above by Doug Marmon in his
reply
> to Lurk, with some comments added by Leaf:
>
DOUG RESPONDS:
Leaf, I'm not sure why you say that I am comparing Paul with Martin Luther
King or David Lane. I was talking about the subject of plagiarism. That is
all I was comparing. I used Martin Luther King as an example, because it
seems to be a case of plagiarism that we are all more objective about, have
no significant investment in and can see in probably fairly similar lights
as a group. Thus, it can be a reference to see if we are balanced in our
views of Paul.
The issue I was trying to illustrate is that, even though King's plagiarism
has upset many people, it has not caused a call for apology from his heirs,
friends or others in the equal rights movement. We don't expect them to
apologize for King's plagiarism. It also hasn't caused people to claim that
King has violated the estates of others, since the issue is not copyright
infringement, but plagiarism - which is about who the real author is.
I also find it curious that you would use the word, Messiah, when referring
to Paul, even calling him a "self-described Messiah", when in fact Paul
never, to my knowledge, referred to himself as a Messiah, and I can't
imagine himself referring to himself that way. Of course, I could be wrong,
and if you show me a quote, I'll be glad to admit my error. However, I don't
know of any ECKists who would think of Paul that way.
Perhaps you are using Messiah as a general label for spiritual leaders. If
so, I'll go along with that. Your comment that we expect more of spiritual
leaders seems like a true one to me. I must say, however, that we seem to
expect more of all of our leaders, including King and Philosophy Professors.
I'm not sure I buy into this concept, however, that we should be expecting
others to live up to a higher standard than we do, especially if this
becomes the basis for our criticism of them. Isn't that hypocritical to be
judging others for not reaching the standards that we ourselves don't reach?
I think the matter of plagiarism is such that in fact most of us try to
avoid plagiarizing. We've been taught this in school. That is why it bothers
us about Paul. Not that we expect him to be better than us, but that he
would cross a line that we try not to cross ourselves.
LEAF CONTINUED:
> Martin Luther King wanted to help the disenfranchised blacks who were
suffering
> from decades of cruelty and prejudice. Twitchell, on the other hand, felt
that
> the intolerable conditions blacks were enduring were earned karmic
conditions,
> and never spoke out against racism or prejudice, and never went on record
in
> favor of racial equality, though the sixties, the years during which he
founded
> Eckankar, were embroiled with such issues.
DOUG RESPONDS:
You might find it interesting that when I was researching Paul's early life
in Paducah, Kentucky, that there were quite a few news stories on Paul where
he set up physical activities for black youths and for young women as well.
This was back in the 1930's in the South. It seemed to me to be quite
progessive for his time.
By the way, do you have any quotes that show Paul claiming the current
conditions of blacks was due to their earned karmic conditions? Or are you
simply generalizing his idea of karma and putting words into his mouth? If
you are going to accuse him of negative statements, I would think you might
show care about accuracy. Once again, if you indeed have such quotes, I'll
be more than happy to admit my error. I just hate to see these dialogues
become filled with assertions about the positions of others, when in fact
they don't fairly represent what that other person would say for themselves.
In this example, I can't imagine Paul saying anything as you have put it.
Perhaps my glasses are too rosy, but that's how I see it based on what I
know about Paul.
> LEAF CONTINUED:
> Do any of these considerations make King's plagiarism excusable? I would
say
> not. But King truly worked unselfishly for those Twitchell remained silent
> about, having left them to suffer their karmic conditions without a word
of
> compassion springing from his lips. King was not thought of as the perfect
> vessel of God, but merely an eloquent and effective orator and organizer
for
> the civil rights movement. Twitchell's claim to fame was his assertion
that he
> was the Mahanta, the bearer of the Rod of Power. The plagiarism is one
> indication, among many others, that Twitchell was a fraud, a label that
tends
> to reflect badly on any claims to be THE representative of God, the Word
made
> Flesh, as he put it.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Leaf, after questioning why I would compare Paul with Martin Luther King,
you go on to do just that. I'm not sure why, since the matter here is about
plagiarism. Are you suggesting that plagiarism is more serious when it is
discovered within a religious teaching, compared to being found in the
speeches of a political movement? If you think so, I'd be interested to hear
why.
You state that plagiarism is an indication that Paul was a fraud. I can see
that it would be fair to say that Paul's plagiarism lays himself open to
being questioned as to his authenticity as a spiritual leader, but it seems
to me that the proper evaluation of the value of a spiritual teacher is more
accurately determined by the results of his teaching, not the peculiarities
of his style or personality. Paul walked outside the mainstream of
civilization as a general practice, not caring to follow the herd but to
live his own way. This doesn't mean he was harming anyone, it only means he
was making his own choices as to the way he wanted to live. He was accused
of many things about his teachings while he was alive (although plagiarism
was never a serious charge while he lived), but as he states quite clearly -
he doesn't accept these claims that he, or the rest of us, are guilty. In
his talk, We Are Not Guilty, he in fact addresses this exact subject, and
how the social consciousness uses guilt to control and limit people. And by
the way, I do have quotes on what he said and included them in Chapter Six
of my book.
I think that there are many valuable teachings that Paul did bring to
thousands, and it is this value by which we can judge a genuine teacher.
This, however, doesn't mean that everyone liked him, or found him to be
their ideal spiritual teacher. It simply raises the subject on what the
criteria is by which we claim to judge a fraud from the real thing -
especially since nearly every real spiritual teacher has been disliked by
the majority of people in their own age. Popular opinion is hardly a useful
guage.
> LEAF CONTINUED:
> King, on the other hand, really was an extraordinarily
> effective organizer and spokesman for the civil rights movement. He was
the
> real thing, despite any plagiarism he committed. In my view, the issue
isn't
> merely the fact that Twitchell plagiarized, though plagiarism is hardly an
> endearing proclivity on his part, but rather that the plagiarism, combined
with
> several other revealing facts about Twtchell's creation of Eckankar, point
> strongly to the conclusion many have made that Twtichell was not what he
> claimed to be. In other words, it adds up to a hoax, a sham, a fabrication
on
> the part of Twitchell.
DOUG RESPONDS:
The same can be said about Martin Luther King. He showed that he was a sham,
since he didn't author all that he claimed to author. Yes, in some small way
this is true, but it is being blown out of proportion. There is no doubt
that the man, King, was a public figure, and not everything he did in his
private life was well known, or when it was known it was not all well-liked
or approved of. Many of his actions were called into question, suggesting he
had ulterior motives, but history has shown that his actions were still
significant and what he stood for is something that we still believe in
today.
It is because of how we view King today that determines how we judge him.
Not actually by what he did or said in his day, but by our own narrow
viewpoint of today. When we hear that Thomas Jefferson kept his slaves, we
don't view him so favorably today. This is the popular way of judging public
figures. With spiritual leaders this public criticism is always more severe,
since they are generally teaching something out of the norm or new to the
consciousness. That's why they are seen as leaders by some people, but to
others they are leading in the wrong direction and therefore frauds.
This, unfortunately, is all that there is to many of these claims of fraud.
It all comes down to whether we agree with their teaching or not. If we
don't, they were a fraud. If we do, they were a real spiritual teacher. This
is a childish approach. There is no objectivity in this analysis at all. It
is pure opinion.
There is no question that Paul started a new spiritual group, and that group
has grown significantly and is the home for thousands of people. This, in
fact, is all that we need to know to say that he was in fact a spiritual
leader. Whether he was a good one or not would require objective criteria by
which to measure him, and I don't know of any such universally accepted
measuring stick. However, if you'd like to take a crack at establishing one,
I'd be interested in discussing it. I'm sure such a thing is possible, but
it could make for an interesting discussion.
> LEAF CONTINUED:
> We all know, based on the facts of history, what Martin Luther King was,
and
> also, perhaps, what he was not. The facts are easy to ascertain and to
accept,
> in his case. And what about Twitchell? People obviously do not find the
facts
> easy to face, and even less easy to accept.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Actually, I think we know a lot less about King's personal life that you
suggest. We know his public record, but not a whole lot about his family
life or what his critics have said about him. With Paul, on the other hand,
we have folks like David Lane who have devoted over 30 years in research to
find flaws. David admits he has not tried to portray a balanced view, but
has focused on what he claims were the untold stories. Unfortunately, many
untold stories are gossip, and so mixed with some of the real facts from
David, we find many stories that turned out to be false.
Yes, I think David's story was hard for many ECKists to accept, because
mostly it didn't jive with what ECKists knew about Paul. As my book shows,
their images of Paul were more accurate than David's portrayal. We see in
David's book huge amounts of suggestions of possible deceit, possible
cover-up, possible fraud, but the facts themselves don't show us real
deceit, real cover-up or real fraud. They do show real plagiarism, however,
but instead of simply treating it as plagiarism we now find this being being
blown up as if they were acts of something much more horrible.
If we want to treat these things fairly then we should simply lay out the
facts as they are, and let everyone decide for themselves what it proves.
Offering up our opinions is fine, but so should be the respecting of
differing opinions. In other words, we should not confuse our opinions with
facts, but should hopefully listen to each other's opinions with respect
while being objective and accurate about the facts.
> LEAF CONTINUED:
> Doug also, quite sneakily I think, tries to distinguish plagiarism from
> ownership issues, as if these are separate issues. This is a ludicrous
stretch
> to make, since the definition of plagiarism in the minds of most is the
use of
> the writings of another without permission, that is, stealing another's
labors
> and calling it one's own:
>
> Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
> Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
> Function: verb
> Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
> Etymology: plagiary
> Date: 1716
> transitive senses
> : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use
> (another's production) without crediting the source
> intransitive senses
> : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or
product
> derived from an existing source
DOUG RESPONDS:
We often hear people saying that plagiarism is stealing, and in fact this
was its original meaning, since it derives from a word that means the
stealing of the children from others. However, it should also be noted that
when this meaning was first lauched and became popular, back in the 16th and
17th centuries, these accusations were made against anyone who copied ideas,
plots, character types, information, images, and on and on. According to one
historian, almost every major figure in literature was either the "filcher
or the filchee" in those days. An actual example was that the second person
to write a book on fishing was considered a plagiarist by the author of The
Compleat Angler, which was the first book on fishing (after the printing
press made these things possible).
Today, we know that our laws have formed to protect each other from theft of
property. These laws are the copyright laws. They define what someone can
actually own and control. Copyright law is not the same thing as
plagiarism - even though these often get confused in many people's minds. As
one lawyer put it (which I quote in my book) copyrights are about ownership
and plagiarism is about authorship.
So, when we say that plagiarism is a form of stealing, this is actually not
literally accurate. Copyright infringement is stealing, since it is the
taking of "intellectual property." There are major debates going on today
over these very laws, especially in the case of MP3 music and digital video
rights, when they are copied and distributed through the Internet.
Plagiarism is something altogether different, and is not about ownership.
Therefore, when we use the term, plagiarism, correctly today we mean that
someone has not properly credited their sources. They have written something
that came from someone else without mentioning the name of the original
author. If the whole of a work has been copied, then it falls into the
category of copyright infringement, but when a few paragraphs are taken and
reworded or rearranged into a new form, this is not copyright infringement,
but it is plagiarism.
> LEAF CONTINUED:
> Of course it involves the issue of ownership, by its very definition. It
is an
> infringement upon the plagiarist's readership as well as an infringement
upon
> the true author(s). But Doug plays loose and sloppy with this issue, as if
it
> is some kind of unsolvable ethical conundrum or arcane philosophical
riddle of
> small importance or significance. Doug tries to redefine plagiarism,
altering
> the meaning to something far different from the commonly accepted
definition.
> Read on, to see more examples of this.]
DOUG RESPONDS:
I am not redefining it at all, as Chapter Six in my book shows quite
clearly. These are popularly confused terms, but their actual meaning is
quite distinct and well documented. For a much more complete discussion on
this, see my book. I reference experts in the field and show in fact what a
complex issue this subject really is.
When students in school are instructed not to plagiarize, it isn't because
they are stealing the property of others. In fact, our laws make it clear
that no one can own paragraphs, or titles, or sayings (unless they are
registered as trademarks), or plots, or ideas, or information. These things
are considered public and not ownable by any individual. This all falls
under the laws of Copyrights. That is where what is owned is determined.
Students in school are instructed not to plagiarize because they are being
graded on their work, and their efforts. Therefore, it is important that
they are the actual author.
I think the matter of plagiarism is serious enough, and wonder why people
continue trying to inflate the matter into some kind of crime, when it is a
matter of ethics and no law has been broken.
neuralsurfer
Why not post some examples of Martin Luther King's plagiarism so can
get an idea if they are comparative with Twitchell's?
Joe
What King's heirs do or do not do is immaterial to discerning right
from wrong -- unless you want to use the "two wrongs make a right"
argument here.
King's plagiarism occurs in a college paper.
Twitchell's plagiarism is in an entirely different venue -- commercial
books that indeed violate copyright protected texts of other
commercial authors.
...and Eckankar org CONTINUES to publish and profit from books
containing plagiarized passages from copyright protected texts.
It's wrong, and everyone knows it.
That's why Eckankar is silent on the topic of plagiarism. How can the
world's highst religion say its founder was a plagiarist?
>
> I also find it curious that you would use the word, Messiah, when referring
> to Paul, even calling him a "self-described Messiah", when in fact Paul
> never, to my knowledge, referred to himself as a Messiah, and I can't
> imagine himself referring to himself that way. Of course, I could be wrong,
> and if you show me a quote, I'll be glad to admit my error. However, I don't
> know of any ECKists who would think of Paul that way.
Paul did refer to himself as a "New Age Mesiah" in at least one of his
early writings.
>
> Perhaps you are using Messiah as a general label for spiritual leaders. If
> so, I'll go along with that. Your comment that we expect more of spiritual
> leaders seems like a true one to me. I must say, however, that we seem to
> expect more of all of our leaders, including King and Philosophy Professors.
> I'm not sure I buy into this concept, however, that we should be expecting
> others to live up to a higher standard than we do, especially if this
> becomes the basis for our criticism of them. Isn't that hypocritical to be
> judging others for not reaching the standards that we ourselves don't reach?
Isn't it hypocritical for one who says He's God to plagiarize and lie?
Paulji set himself up as God, or at least the messenger of God.
He gave himself the title of Mahanta, the Living Eck Master.
Can't we expect that someone with such an incredibly lofty title would
be honest with us?
I guess not.
>
> I think the matter of plagiarism is such that in fact most of us try to
> avoid plagiarizing. We've been taught this in school. That is why it bothers
> us about Paul. Not that we expect him to be better than us, but that he
> would cross a line that we try not to cross ourselves.
We don't expect THE MAHANTA, THE LIVING ECK MASTER to be better than
us?
>
>
> LEAF CONTINUED:
> > Martin Luther King wanted to help the disenfranchised blacks who were
> suffering
> > from decades of cruelty and prejudice. Twitchell, on the other hand, felt
> that
> > the intolerable conditions blacks were enduring were earned karmic
> conditions,
> > and never spoke out against racism or prejudice, and never went on record
> in
> > favor of racial equality, though the sixties, the years during which he
> founded
> > Eckankar, were embroiled with such issues.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> You might find it interesting that when I was researching Paul's early life
> in Paducah, Kentucky, that there were quite a few news stories on Paul where
> he set up physical activities for black youths and for young women as well.
> This was back in the 1930's in the South. It seemed to me to be quite
> progessive for his time.
Why would you believe such stories, when it's been established that
Paulji made up storis about his accomplishments?
Why in the world are you quoting Paulji as a reliable source of info
on Paulji?
>
> By the way, do you have any quotes that show Paul claiming the current
> conditions of blacks was due to their earned karmic conditions?
Everything Paulji wrote about karma.
Or are you
> simply generalizing his idea of karma and putting words into his mouth? If
> you are going to accuse him of negative statements, I would think you might
> show care about accuracy. Once again, if you indeed have such quotes, I'll
> be more than happy to admit my error. I just hate to see these dialogues
> become filled with assertions about the positions of others, when in fact
> they don't fairly represent what that other person would say for themselves.
> In this example, I can't imagine Paul saying anything as you have put it.
> Perhaps my glasses are too rosy, but that's how I see it based on what I
> know about Paul.
Sorry, but Eckankar's concept of Karma is a two edged sword. If you
buy into this concept, then it follows that people are born into
trying conditions (eg racial discrimination and poverty) as a result
of their actions.
And you can't slide in the "Soul chooses its incarnations" canard
along with the Karma concept. The two concepts are mutually exclusive
to each other. If you think about it.
Lol...we've discovered a mountain of evidence that Paulji lied,
plagiarized, made false prophecies, charged hundreds of dollars for
bogus readings, misrepresented his past, did nothing to show he was
anything more than a simple human being. On the other side, we have
Paulji writing and writing and writing about the magnificence of his
spiritual stature as 14th Initiate MAHANTA, LIVING ECK MASTER...and to
top it all off, we have Paulji making a living from his Eckankar
business.
We have no objective criteria to judge Paulji?
Paulji never did anything right except play the part of a Cult leader.
>
>
> > LEAF CONTINUED:
> > We all know, based on the facts of history, what Martin Luther King was,
> and
> > also, perhaps, what he was not. The facts are easy to ascertain and to
> accept,
> > in his case. And what about Twitchell? People obviously do not find the
> facts
> > easy to face, and even less easy to accept.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Actually, I think we know a lot less about King's personal life that you
> suggest. We know his public record, but not a whole lot about his family
> life or what his critics have said about him. With Paul, on the other hand,
> we have folks like David Lane who have devoted over 30 years in research to
> find flaws. David admits he has not tried to portray a balanced view, but
> has focused on what he claims were the untold stories. Unfortunately, many
> untold stories are gossip, and so mixed with some of the real facts from
> David, we find many stories that turned out to be false.
Nope, not a one Doug.
It's really hurts, don't it?
Joe
> to Paul, even calling him a "self-described Messiah", when in fact Paul
> never, to my knowledge, referred to himself as a Messiah, and I can't
> imagine himself referring to himself that way. Of course, I could be wrong,
> and if you show me a quote, I'll be glad to admit my error. However, I don't
> know of any ECKists who would think of Paul that way.
See Paulji's early book ALL ABOUT ECK. The reference is there.
Doug Marman
> Why not post some examples of Martin Luther King's plagiarism so can
> get an idea if they are comparative with Twitchell's?
Take a look at this site, David:
http://www.martinlutherking.org/thebeast.html
Here's another site: http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/plagiarism.html
So, David, how would you say they compare?
Doug.
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d975b1d5.02081...@posting.google.com...