Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Discussion of cults generally - not specifically related to the SES or its related organisations.
ConcernedMum
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby ConcernedMum » Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:21 am

JAMR
My engagement was directed at Bluemoon, to support her in her interaction with you. I thought she was being exceptionally patient and kind in response to the tone you were using with her. Unfortunately there was no way of publicly expressing support without stating what it was I was supporting her for. Bluemoon, not you, was the object of my direct communication. Any emotion I had was in support of Bluemoon, who has shown herself on this board to be patient, reasonable, kind, thoughtful and I felt that needed saying in the context of her interaction with you.

My comments on what you wrote was not meant as a personal 'attack', just an expression of my opinion about what you have published here (and a reflection on how I think a personality type and the SES are linked), in the context of Bluemoon being exemplary in responding. I am not so interested in your views, so as far as I'm concerned, that is all. I know this is a bit rude, but in real life also, we have to cut off from people whose views and tone we find unpleasant. Life is just too short to engage with everyone.

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby JAMR » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:40 pm

woodgreen, you said,

Thought I had lost the plot for a short while CM - but for sure JAMR is not someone I wish to post with on the Forum either. But I do have a slight tendency to react and my decision is to not get dragged down by some of the posters who go backwards.


Except you have posted me directly and discussing me in this way with others surely does not mean you are NOT posting with me, so I will reply.

You imply that I am a poster that is going backward, what can you offer that supports this?

If I overstep the moderaters mark, then I will say bye, thanks, and will move on and work elsewhere against the SES.


This is not an interaction that should make any difference to anything you wish to do against the SES through this forum. I have not suggested you do not take issue with the SES, I have already given perspective to the approach I have taken. There is no reason for you to consider anything I have said in your decision to do this, however I will not be joining what I consider a futile crusade from either you or bluemoon against the SES. If your intention is to get a groundswell from other posters on this forum, there is not much support coming from other posters (unless there are PMs behind the scenes), and as my posts on this have been done over the past few months I don’t think you can consider me the reason.

So no prob if the JAMRS, Chittanis, and others have pushed some people too far


You have no reason to leave, or to feel that I am attacking you personally. I have never made a personal attack against you or the other posters. I have provided plenty of support for my ideas, an in essence I get where you are coming from wrt to the SES. I simply think that you are wasting your time, and have not considered common social themes between the SES and other groups.

You made these direct comments to me in your previous post

JAMAR - ( sorry if not a correct spelling) - could not quite follow your posts with Bluemoon but blimey seemed a bit much, given what we have said and how she has has attempted to do something, i.e. not getting why you are not saying yes we would support you if push came to shove. Post against Lambie et al if you can. Take him to court if you can.I have expressed my dissappointment but, hey , JAMRs have you grown any gonads against the SES?

Asking if I have the balls to take on the SES? Balls can often interrupt common sense and reason as many men already know, so I suggest anyone taking on a task of this scale, put their brains before their balls. By the way thats your balls, not mine.

Would you take legal action? Not so, so far as I can pick up. Or do you expect women to do it for you? Ever examined why the male cult SES survives ,JAMR? Answer - by a) using men and b) using women , and d) by accusing disabled people , gay people and anyone who does not meet the test of being some perfect human, to have been born in this life through karma. And e) by using money. The cult test is simple, and the SES are 100% cult. Are you willing to sign up against Lambie and the SES and even put some money in? Because that was his threat against Bluemoon, and the Forum by his default.


No to all the above from me, doing something about the SES is not my particular crusade. Energy and money could be better spent on saving the whales, the rainforests, the starving, the ill, there is no limit to causes that are more worthy to support. Look again at SES like organisations, many we accept in everyday life cause the same or more damage. Why are you unable to just get on with your life and let the SES go its own way, just as we do with so many other social institutions that submerge our individuality.

You have no reason to stop posting this forum, do not let your anger against the SES limit your freedom on this. I have no issue debating about the SES, but I am more likely to deal with it as objectively as possible.

I would add that aside from your ‘gonads’ comment, your posting conduct posting has been very civil, so I bear you no ill will whatever. If the posting gets a little robust, then we probably need to toughen up, because if you want to scrap with the SES you will need to be tough. Keep posting, I will still look for cracks in the logic and evidence, perhaps a different perspective might challenge you to find a different way to approach the problem.

One thing I will not be doing is pussyfooting around the topic and avoiding saying things for fear of offending peoples sensibilities when it comes to what I observe. You can be sure that I will give you this as directly as possible, no apologies or frills. Many people use forums and social media in the same way as they do face to face contact, full of subtle inference, and platitudes so they don’t get any backlash. I do the same in my face to face, but don’t see the need to skirt around in a forum.

chittani
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:03 pm

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby chittani » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:07 pm

JAMR,

If we are talking about netiquette, then personally I do find your posts extremely long-winded, if you don't mind me saying so. This has improved a little of late through your suffering attacks, unpleasant as I'm sure that is, that you had to respond to. If you are going to write so much, it will give the impression that you don't have much interest in what other people have to say.

Your main point seems to be that cult and culture are intertwined. OK, fine. But that doesn't prove that all forms of cult-ure are morally equal, and should just be accepted. I believe that is what is called a counsel of despair. Shantananda spoke about idealism and practicality going hand in hand, which means that we need to make our idealism work in the real world, no matter how hard it seems.

I think you are getting people's backs up by the creeping sense that you use a lot of reasonable-sounding words to smuggle in some unreasonable thoughts and emotions that you don't want to own up to. Even, perhaps, to yourself? Like that there is something OK about treating women as lower than men. It's a strange world where that could be thought fair or right. But it's not an inevitable world - as you seem to believe.

Sometimes, as we say here in the UK, the Rupert Murdochs of the world do get their comeuppance.

I understand Bluemoon's point to be that the SES view of women was never an overt version of prejudices existing in society (as you claim), but was actually covert. It only became overt around the fireplace with port and cigars once the ladies had 'retired'. And the liberals, of course.

woodgreen
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby woodgreen » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:28 pm

Hi Bluemoon,I won't quote your exchange with JAMR ,it gets too long(!) but my sincere apologies, it is not you capitulating it is JAMR, and possibly Chittani, probably subliminally. Teaches us all a lesson about how cults like the SES affect our minds, and how to deal with the aftermath of their existence in our lives. Whew, another few days of how the SES can get to us. Time out everyone? If ex-adults on the Forum ( like me , Bluemoon, JAMR and Chittani at the moment) hit a brick wall from time to time then I hope the people who started the Forum can understand that the very same organisation affects all age groups and we may work through it in different ways. That said JAMR, your exchanges with Bluemoon seem to deny how her experience in leaving the SES has affected her, Lambie or not. And indicates an acceptance of organisations, and practices, that have clearly been found to be wrong by most people's standards. Even in business, politics religion or any other institution that oversteps the mark.The excuse of the "human condition" is not enough anymore - even Rupert Murdoch resorted to this as his reason for losing control of his empire. An empire that got too big for its boots - a parallel for the SES maybe? When Lambie threatens a woman who seeks to post her views, then something is wrong in my view. Bit like Mclaren who took Frith Oliver to court. Fortunately he lost but at some cost to the human beings involved. Cheers Bluemoon, keep posting, difficult though it is sometimes, for me too. xxxxxx woodgreen
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).

bluemoon
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:52 am

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby bluemoon » Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:53 am

Hi everyone,

This is really very useful and I would like to respond to several points made by everyone, so I hope you will bear with me. Thank you ConcernedMum and woodgreen for your kind words and Chittani for your very interesting points too.

Firstly JAMR, I engaged with you as I wanted to try to reason with you through the points you made, and as CM noted, I have been well trained to do this through SES. It was par for the course to have to ‘reason’ in this ‘long-winded’ (as Chittani put it!) manner. You have not responded to my last post to you JAMR, which is about 8 posts down page 2 I think, and I also recommended a book about the feminine which I would be interested if you would feel inclined to read? If you would I think we have got to a point of ‘understanding’ over this.

Chittani wrote:

I understand Bluemoon's point to be that the SES view of women was never an overt version of prejudices existing in society (as you claim), but was actually covert. It only became overt around the fireplace with port and cigars once the ladies had 'retired'. And the liberals, of course.


It isn’t just about the women it’s about the ‘liberals’ too. Interesting point. SES was started to teach economics - 'liberal', rather than right wing economics. In fact I was informed by Ian Mason (Head of Economics and Law and now also Principal in UK) sometime ago that they tried to close down the economics in SES. I believe there have also been moves to change the name to something like School of Practical Philosophy (which is common outside UK), leaving out economics altogether. The philosophy is ostensibly about ‘Adviata’ (which is fine) but the ‘covert’ stuff is all about gender relations according to ancient beliefs based upon some pretty nasty ideas about women and suppression of women.

Chittani wrote to JAMR:

I think you are getting people's backs up by the creeping sense that you use a lot of reasonable-sounding words to smuggle in some unreasonable thoughts and emotions that you don't want to own up to. Even, perhaps, to yourself? Like that there is something OK about treating women as lower than men. It's a strange world where that could be thought fair or right. But it's not an inevitable world - as you seem to believe.


Chttani has it spot on I think here. In fact I was beginning to get that knot in my stomach and feeling ill through the discussion with JAMR. I was calling in my head for someone to help out, and along came at first not a man (as I have been taught to believe are supposed to ‘protect’ women!) but a lady (two if you are female Woodgreen – sorry but I am not sure you have ever said your gender). They may have been a bit direct to you JAMR, but I was beginning to feel that you were trying to grind me down. This is the effect of some of the covert stuff in SES on women - it crushes them and just as John L says in his song ‘While putting her down, we pretend that she's above us’. I am sure many people can relate to that in SES. I heard over and over again how ‘Mr Maclaren used to say’ .... ‘I don’t know why women want equality when they are so much more superior to the men’ or something along those lines. Whilst all the while setting up the whole organisation so as to push them down. And the image of them ‘around the fireplace with port and cigars’ says it all really.

ConcernedMum wrote:

I think the SES does attract men with a superiority complex, (and women who wish to occupy the other end of the sado-masochistic spectrum (and who can turn the tables on others weaker than themselves in turn)


I have to admit I did see a bit of this and it sickened me.

Woodgreen I didn’t know LM took Frith Oliver to court! Wow he used her as an experiment and then tried to crush her even more.

I just want to say I don't think that Chittani and JAMR are of the same mind set, don't want to offend anyone but can we keep people separate?

I also want to say to JAMR that I am not on a ‘crusade’. All I ever intended was to try to make the issues transparent and to try to persuade them that equal status between the genders will benefit everyone.

Thanks to all, Bluemoon
Last edited by bluemoon on Fri May 25, 2012 7:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
SES London, 1990-2009, Female

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby JAMR » Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:55 pm

Chittan, you said
If we are talking about netiquette, then personally I do find your posts extremely long-winded, if you don't mind me saying so. This has improved a little of late through your suffering attacks, unpleasant as I'm sure that is, that you had to respond to. If you are going to write so much, it will give the impression that you don't have much interest in what other people have to say.

Given most posts are based upon assertions with little to substantiate about issues that I consider should be backed up, my responses will address the many assertions and get backed up. That means long responses. My alternative is filling posts with unsubstantiated and emotional assertions.

Your main point seems to be that cult and culture are intertwined. OK, fine. But that doesn't prove that all forms of cult-ure are morally equal, and should just be accepted. I believe that is what is called a counsel of despair.

You miss the point. Cults are just human institutions and reflect the way people are. Some are more extreme than others, but vary in degree rather than kind. Morals are relative, cannibal societies have considered it wrong not to eat your relatives. Recognising something does not mean we accept it and not oppose it with our own subjective morality. Likewise the fact that we tend to see morals as absolute explains many of the issues humans have, and thats also part of the human landscape. Cant speak for your counsel of despair, I think that our state of mind is largely personal. We are all debating the SES here and most of us appeared to decide we were no longer prepared to associate with them, but our reactions still vary widely. I am not suggesting we have a lot of choice in how we react, but any despair we feel about the SES is personal.

Shantananda spoke about idealism and practicality going hand in hand, which means that we need to make our idealism work in the real world, no matter how hard it seems.

Seems reasonable but not sure what it has to do with my posts?

Shatananda Saraswathi also based his ideal on the existence of the Atman, reincarnation and varios metaphysical phenomena, noe of which have stood rational debate. What is the point of living pragmatically around an ideal that has no basis in reality? Its quite possible that the vision of Samadhi exists just as a way to assuage our existential fears. I would rather practice the meditation and yoga, getting the physical benefits and if this is all it provides then I will not be disappointed. If you start with the basis that karma and reincarnation are you ideal, perhaps there is no way to live practically with something thats just a social construct. Personally, my fear of oblivion would be less if I thought there were a higher being than me, so I will leave myself open to the possibility, but I cannot see much evidence for it.

I think you are getting people's backs up by the creeping sense that you use a lot of reasonable-sounding words to smuggle in some unreasonable thoughts and emotions that you don't want to own up to.

If that were the case then I am sure people could have identified these and provided logical, evidence based counters. If you think this is the case why not articulate what my unreasonable thoughts and emotions are and see if they stand some rational debate?

Even, perhaps, to yourself?


No doubt this is correct, just as it is with all of us, however my posts are certainly more direct and specific than those I have been posting with. You appear to have more direct style, but your assertions still lack backing.
Like that there is something OK about treating women as lower than men.


Where did I say this? The mental trap here is imagining that because women occupy less formal positions of authority than men they are disadvantaged. Any criteria of value in life men score lower than women even in the developed world. 905 of prison populating is male, 80% homeless, 4x suicide rate in many countries, 5-10% lower longevity – what the issue with men being held accountable in more formal positions than women – holding these is unlikely to improve the quality of your life. What about this profile makes you imagine that women are treated lower than men?
Note that I am not raising these facts as issues to be addressed, just noting they do exist, and suggesting that gender equity debates should consider the whole picture and look at the real issues.

It's a strange world where that could be thought fair or right. But it's not an inevitable world - as you seem to believe.


When did I say it was inevitable? Perhaps you are mistaking inevitable with the moralistic fallacy, this is where during the process of dictating how the world “ought” to be, they mistake it for being the way it “is”. I would prefer to understand reality without the imposed cloaks of subjective morality, than living in Disneyland. Seeing some of the grim reality does not mean we have to be miserable about it.

Sometimes, as we say here in the UK, the Rupert Murdochs of the world do get their comeuppance.

This is a joke. Why do you imagine that the media circus with Murdoch will get the exact comeuppance they deserve?. The stuff that comes to light in any power based process is just the tip of the iceberg, for every inequity that comes to light, another 100 are hidden, and will never be balanced. This idealistic view is a social opiate to keep the masses numb and dumb. Blind justice is just a slogan. If you don’t believe me, just watch the powerplay with News of the World, you can be certain it will not be an eye for an eye in administered justice, leave alone the fact that one can never truly recompense the past actions. All the statements about being unable to remember, never knowing etc might well be true, but just imagine all the conscious actions that must have been taken to build this empire. Do you imagine these omelettes were made without breaking any eggs?

I understand Bluemoon's point to be that the SES view of women was never an overt version of prejudices existing in society (as you claim), but was actually covert. It only became overt around the fireplace with port and cigars once the ladies had 'retired'. And the liberals, of course


There are two sides to this. On the first I agree with you. SES did not advertise on their London Underground posters that “women could find their true place in society, not alongside, but behind the men. True realisation works better on males, but women can also get there”.

However once in the school this position was not hidden, but you did need to be a certain level where it became overt, just as the classes also became split along gender lines. I ended up in a males only group, and the ladies had a ladies own group.

On the second aspect, I cannot think of anyone who is not sexist in any form, although I know plenty who claim to be so, when you unravel their position, most dont really have any idea just what sexism means and that some of their behavior is sexism. Once again, I am not raising this as an issue, just pointing out it exists. As with any of my post, I am prepared to back my assertions with logic and evidence. Can you do the same?

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby JAMR » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:43 pm

woodgreen, you said,
That said JAMR, your exchanges with Bluemoon seem to deny how her experience in leaving the SES has affected her, Lambie or not.


I did not deny bluemoons experience, just as I noted that my experience with SES violated my own individuality. If bluemoon wants to get an audience for her narrative, then by all means she should do so. My point was that if she thinks this narrative will get Lambie to modify the SES along bluemoons lines, or even acknowledge that bluemoons are right and theirs are wrong, this is a futile exercise.

And indicates an acceptance of organisations, and practices, that have clearly been found to be wrong by most people's standards. Even in business, politics religion or any other institution that oversteps the mark.


There are plenty of things that by accepted standards are wrong, and I do not intend to try and rid the world of evil human behaviour, regardless of my definition of evil. Why should I take up your crusade against the SES, and not direct my efforts against corruption in the 3rd world that might then help address the potable water issues in Africa – all clearly more needy causes than ‘fixing’ the SES. What action are you taking against the Catholic church for their violations of our sexual norms?

Because I accept that these things exist, does not mean I condone them, or that I will waste my time trying to fix things outside of my control. I am not in a position to stop you trying to exact revenge upon the SES, I just think you are wasting your time. This is based upon my time in a couple of the school locations and observing others engaged in this futile exercise. I honestly do not see the school as any worse than many of the cults or extreme religions that infest the world. I can also find many of their ‘evils’ in well accepted social institutions like schools.

The excuse of the "human condition" is not enough anymore - even Rupert Murdoch resorted to this as his reason for losing control of his empire. An empire that got too big for its boots - a parallel for the SES maybe? When Lambie threatens a woman who seeks to post her views, then something is wrong in my view.


We are in violent agreement here, however this misses my point. Should we then try and address every wrong that exists? Even if we accept that right and wrong are subjective positions, we could spend many lifetimes work trying to right almost universally accepted wrongs. Why should I march with you on the SES, will you throw your weight in with me to address issues with food intolerances and allergies that appear to be sweeping the world and also interfere with my quality of life?

chittani
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:03 pm

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby chittani » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:38 pm

JAMR wrote:
Chittani wrote:Sometimes, as we say here in the UK, the Rupert Murdochs of the world do get their comeuppance.


This is a joke.


Yes, just a joke!

JAMR wrote:You miss the point. Cults are just human institutions and reflect the way people are. Some are more extreme than others, but vary in degree rather than kind. Morals are relative, cannibal societies have considered it wrong not to eat your relatives. Recognising something does not mean we accept it and not oppose it with our own subjective morality. Likewise the fact that we tend to see morals as absolute explains many of the issues humans have, and thats also part of the human landscape.


You seem to think that without a God there is no way to establish any morality. This is an old argument, but not valid. I agree it's better to steer clear of metaphysics. In fact, we don't need it as there is a lot of evidence that morality relates to human nature. For example, marriage. Human beings need a great deal of rearing before they are ready to live in the world, and so evolution determines that we must form stable long-term couples. That is a moral issue and it somehow seems 'right'. Marriage is a cultural institution that varies across the world, but every single culture has some form of ritual around forming couples.

Jared Diamond is a scientist who has lived with a number of Stone Age tribes in New Guinea and he reports an extreme case of a tribe in which boys are raped ritually by elders. According to Diamond, this tribe exhibits a lot of psychological problems.

My argument would be that this isn't surprising, because this cultural institution of child rape is not in accord with human nature and is intrinsically harmful. While morals are difficult to pin down, I believe this is an example of non-relative morality - we don't need to refer to 'absolutes' to know that child rape is objectively immoral.

Ergo, you're wrong to say morals are entirely relative or subjective.

Is that substantiated enough for you? And all in less than 250 words!

woodgreen
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby woodgreen » Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:09 pm

Hi Bluemoon, responding to you first as it will take me a while to let JAMR have my , hopefully, considered response. Yes I am female - i thought that had been established in my posts, but no worries. And gender does seem to be a tremendously big issue for the SES to come to terms with in the modern world i.e. the one that exists outside of their parameters. Let's not forget that their view can insidiously get into people during their time in the School, and unfortunately, their view of male supremacy will appeal to some, not all, males. It operates outside of the SES too, but the difference is that it is openly challenged , so much so that laws have long been been passed to stop discrimination. And in the outside world people are much freer to walk away from oppression. You were, and still are, quite right to challenge the School's view of women - it was not, nor is, futile. In fact it figures large in "The Secret Cult", hence my reference to Frith Oliver. The School tried to take her children away but lost in Court. That's apart from the other issues that have been identified on the Forum - discrimmination against disabled, gay, and any other "imperfect" creation they choose to pick on. And wrap it up in some cock-eyed use of re-incarnation. Don't worry about posting your paper - I react as you have seen - but I appreciate that I am not the one with the dilema - not to mention the threat of legal action. I think lambie's action towards you has damaged him so a result after all. take care, woodgreen.
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).

woodgreen
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby woodgreen » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:09 pm

JAMR wrote:woodgreen, you said,
That said JAMR, your exchanges with Bluemoon seem to deny how her experience in leaving the SES has affected her, Lambie or not.


I did not deny bluemoons experience, just as I noted that my experience with SES violated my own individuality. If bluemoon wants to get an audience for her narrative, then by all means she should do so. My point was that if she thinks this narrative will get Lambie to modify the SES along bluemoons lines, or even acknowledge that bluemoons are right and theirs are wrong, this is a futile exercise.

And indicates an acceptance of organisations, and practices, that have clearly been found to be wrong by most people's standards. Even in business, politics religion or any other institution that oversteps the mark.


There are plenty of things that by accepted standards are wrong, and I do not intend to try and rid the world of evil human behaviour, regardless of my definition of evil. Why should I take up your crusade against the SES, and not direct my efforts against corruption in the 3rd world that might then help address the potable water issues in Africa – all clearly more needy causes than ‘fixing’ the SES. What action are you taking against the Catholic church for their violations of our sexual norms?

Because I accept that these things exist, does not mean I condone them, or that I will waste my time trying to fix things outside of my control. I am not in a position to stop you trying to exact revenge upon the SES, I just think you are wasting your time. This is based upon my time in a couple of the school locations and observing others engaged in this futile exercise. I honestly do not see the school as any worse than many of the cults or extreme religions that infest the world. I can also find many of their ‘evils’ in well accepted social institutions like schools.

The excuse of the "human condition" is not enough anymore - even Rupert Murdoch resorted to this as his reason for losing control of his empire. An empire that got too big for its boots - a parallel for the SES maybe? When Lambie threatens a woman who seeks to post her views, then something is wrong in my view.


We are in violent agreement here, however this misses my point. Should we then try and address every wrong that exists? Even if we accept that right and wrong are subjective positions, we could spend many lifetimes work trying to right almost universally accepted wrongs. Why should I march with you on the SES, will you throw your weight in with me to address issues with food intolerances and allergies that appear to be sweeping the world and also interfere with my quality of life?

Hi JAMR - before I respond fully, could you confirm that you are a new member, have recently left the SES ( in South Africa if I read your post correctly) and you spent quite a number of years in there. Forgive me asking but it does matter on the Forum, and I will try to respond accordingly , allowing for your own position vis a vis the SES. Unfortunately, no disrespect, I cannot fathom your call to arms to me against food allergies etc. Happy to do so, but not sure what and where this issue has relevance to the SES. Might be a reaction that the SES has provoked - makes us all very sensitive does the SES - so maybe we have gone full circle. I'm so sensitive to life, it hurts!! regards, woodgreen
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).

woodgreen
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby woodgreen » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:55 pm

Hi JAMR - just checked your posts again. It seems you were brought up a Catholic ( me too as you know) but suffered some abuse at the hands of the Catholic Church. I am sorry about that. And sorry if this has led you to try and pick holes in my postings about the SES. If you want to discuss abuses in the Catholic Church then I'm happy to do so, although I'm not sure this Forum is the right place. This Forum is about the SES, and I don't think we should digress into what we, as you suggest, is our violent agreement, as we probably do agree. It may be that because of the abuse you suffered you found yourself in the SES, and it may be partly why you are having a go, but in all honesty I don't think this is the place to have a go at another Catholic - just because I have tried to explain why the SES is a Cult against many tests, including those against mainsteam religions, the Catholic Church being one of them? Other than this I cannot see what you are asking. regards, woodgreen.
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).

User avatar
morrigan
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:06 am

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby morrigan » Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:16 pm

woodgreen wrote:Hi Bluemoon, responding to you first as it will take me a while to let JAMR have my , hopefully, considered response. Yes I am female - i thought that had been established in my posts, but no worries. And gender does seem to be a tremendously big issue for the SES to come to terms with in the modern world i.e. the one that exists outside of their parameters. Let's not forget that their view can insidiously get into people during their time in the School, and unfortunately, their view of male supremacy will appeal to some, not all, males. It operates outside of the SES too, but the difference is that it is openly challenged , so much so that laws have long been been passed to stop discrimination. And in the outside world people are much freer to walk away from oppression. You were, and still are, quite right to challenge the School's view of women - it was not, nor is, futile. In fact it figures large in "The Secret Cult", hence my reference to Frith Oliver. The School tried to take her children away but lost in Court. That's apart from the other issues that have been identified on the Forum - discrimmination against disabled, gay, and any other "imperfect" creation they choose to pick on. And wrap it up in some cock-eyed use of re-incarnation. Don't worry about posting your paper - I react as you have seen - but I appreciate that I am not the one with the dilema - not to mention the threat of legal action. I think lambie's action towards you has damaged him so a result after all. take care, woodgreen.


And there is a very different idea about masculinity and femininity - Jung has said that we all have both within us, the right side is masculine and the left side is feminine, and both need to come together and have all the abilities and feelings and behaviour to develop well. Also there is another (not Jung - more ancient) "picture" "symbolism" of masculinity and femininity, the sun and moon together. Men and women IRL are equally valuable, equally to choose themselves and don't have to be put down, as women and girls have been in SES, and other places.

woodgreen
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby woodgreen » Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:54 pm

For sure Morrigan, thanks for your reply. Jung was not accepted in the SES when I joined, but coincidentally or not, a short while after I mentioned him, he was. I wasn't pioneering , I had just read a bit about him. He was an early believer of something that is difficult to identify - he called it synchronicity, exampled to him when his sister ( I think) died and he knew it, even though they were thousands of miles apart at the time. Sometimes these things happen to people, as they did to Jung. I believe we are all whole, and human beings,male, female,not perfect, but not here to let organisations and people like the SES use us for their ends. The SES set itself up as some new perfection that can never happen, and it was totally wrong in trying to break down the people and children in their schools to try and achieve their new world. That seems to be what went very wrong in the SES from early on, when McLaren thought he was God. And it goes wrong in all cults, seemingly. Women seem to know this, however it happens, and however long it takes,especially if they are oppressed. Men do too but are more reluctant to take their "Masters" on, especially in the cults. Hope I haven't rambled - think we are on the same page! xxx woodgreen.
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby JAMR » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:34 pm

Bluemoon, you said,

Firstly JAMR, I engaged with you as I wanted to try to reason with you through the points you made, and as CM noted, I have been well trained to do this through SES. It was par for the course to have to ‘reason’ in this ‘long-winded’ (as Chittani put it!) manner.


The SES does not train its members in reasoning. It trains the senses to see things more clearly, and to better see the truth with less mind clutter in the mind. However its is also a belief system despite telling students to neither accept or reject. All this is quite different to deductive reasoning and logic If anything I would say SES membership blunts our ability to do deductive reasoning.

In fact I wish I had realised that inside SES it was as you put it JAMR ‘futile’. Now I know that but at the time I took them on trust thinking their ‘search for Truth’ was genuine and sincere. But having said that I think we were getting somewhere here outside SES and you have not responded to my last post to you JAMR, which is about 8 posts down page 2 I think, and I also recommended a book about the feminine which I would be interested if you would feel inclined to read?


Let me see if I am clear on what you are asking me to do. On the face of it an easy request, yet you would like me to buy/borrow a book and take 20+ hours reading your idea of what the SES should be integrating in their teaching to replace their erroneous (in your opinion) gender position. Is this because you really care about my opinion on if it will fly in the SES, or do you want me to buy into your vision of this? To date, your responses to the questions I have asked and counters to your issues on SES do not demonstrate much investment of time and attempt to answer. If you expect me to invest time in your vision, its reasonable you invest time in my attempt to engage on my questions. If however, your intention is to simply work toward anything that promotes your vision and disregard others, you will need to get someone with a less sceptical approach than I have.

I am making this point because the nature of your request is one of leader/disciple in a very minor way unless you are prepared to invest the same amount of time reviewing my vision, and the bases of these is that a leader provides the vision for their part and the follower invests in other says. If you want me to invest in your idea, you will need to also invest in it. I suggest you will do better by spending some time outlining the basis of the feminine model rather than asking for disproportionate time from me. Since your feminine model calls for a soul, I assume this is metaphysical and the limited information that the link gave me, you will need to show that this vision can be substantiated, rather than being just a feel good sales job.

Note the SES also has a vision, and it is one that you oppose, wrt to their position on gender, and you are trying to impose your vision upon them. This reduces to a simple formula – “I am right and you are wrong”, and this simple formula forms the basis of all human conflict, in religious systems for example.

If you would I think we have got to a point of ‘understanding’ over this that is all I ever tried (unsuccessfully) to achieve inside SES with the Leader. The post I have put up about David Boddy on boys only schools indicates to me that they are just as determined (if not more so) to continue their quest to keep women in a place they would like them to be.


They have developed their creed since sometime in the 1930’s, do you imagine they will welcome an alternative way to position women from you and change their model for yours? You are very optimistic if you think they will dump some of their core beliefs and accept yours without resistance. This is like a golfer going to the hockey club and suggesting they all play golf and give up hockey. Surely the golfer could go and start his own club and get people who want to play golf, to join?

the Hindu caste system and suppression of women versus the equitable, liberal, sustainable kind of society that the work of Henry George could be helpful in moving towards. This is the ‘clash of opposites’ that I felt I found myself in studying both subjects. But of course the philosophy is ostensibly about ‘Adviata’ (which is fine) but the ‘covert’ stuff is all about gender relations according to ancient beliefs based upon some pretty nasty ideas about women and suppression of women. They get rid of both the women who challenge them and the liberals if they can too.


If this is the case, why are you wasting your time trying to get them to consider your alternative view of gender. This is like the Christians suggesting to the Muslims that they should reconsider the role played by Jesus. Or like Galileo suggesting that the earth revolved around the sun. People do not hold beliefs because they have derived them by objective evaluation of facts, they acquire them from their society. So why do you imagine they will even look at your alternate view on how women should be treated? Your views directly challenge the SES belief in gender. Its you against all of them. This is why I consider it a crusade because when you try and get another group to subscribe to your vision, its simple imposition of one set of values over another. I have been in business and watched successive CEOS take over companies and start their reign with their vision. It was always “the last guys ideas were not quite there, but I will get everything right, so trust me”. A couple of years later the old CEO is gone, and the next CEO comes in with the same lines. I believed the first couple because I was naive and had no experience of business, but after a while you realise its all just human powerplay. “Do it my way because I know best”, summarises this.

Chttani has it spot on I think here. In fact I was beginning to get that knot in my stomach and feeling ill through the discussion with JAMR and it felt like I was back in the organisation! I was calling in my head for someone to help out, and along came at first not a man (as I have been taught to believe are supposed to ‘protect’ women!) but a lady (two if you are female Woodgreen – sorry but I am not sure you have ever said your gender). They may have been a bit direct to you JAMR, but I was beginning to feel that you were trying to grind me down.


You felt like this because my questions challenged your views and this is unsettling when you have cherished views on how things should be. I decomposed your position and questioned it at every level. If you had counters to my points, and were able to back your own, then my questions would have been answered. You will note I have not offered any system to counter either yours or the SES, most of my approach has been to show that the SES and other systems have much in common, just as the people supporting the SES are mirrored by people running every other institution.

This is the effect of some of the covert stuff in SES on women - it crushes them and just as John L says in his song ‘While putting her down, we pretend that she's above us’. I am sure many people can relate to that in SES. I heard over and over again how ‘Mr Maclaren used to say’ .... ‘I don’t know why women want equality when they are so much more superior to the men’ or something along those lines. Whilst all the while setting up the whole organisation so as to push them down. And the image of them ‘around the fireplace with port and cigars’ says it all really.


SES crushed both genders. This is like saying the army or big corporate business has a glass ceiling that oppresses women. Both of these systems crush all but the few who are tough enough to get to the top, both men and women. There are countless, faceless men in the cogs of big business and all they want to do is get enough money to retire and get away from the mindless bureaucracy, all non winners have glass ceilings. Big business oppresses all but the tiny minority that survive to get to the top of the hierarchy. People like McLaren intimidated just about everybody, the men were also shoehorned into a role that he decided was on the ‘path’.

I have to admit I did see a bit of this and it sickened me. I can remember some examples in food preparation because of the rigid timekeeping, but it’s too long to go into here. Also I wrote in my notes about an example of following orders to the letter which was amusing but indicated how intelligence can be driven out of the system in this way. I may post that example sometime.


I saw the same thing, and while the SES had some very specific gender stances, much of their rigidity was gender neutral. I recall taking canned tuna to one of the sessions. They were quite polite about it and it was just put to one side, since all meals were vegetarian in my school. I have plenty of good arguments based around healthy aspects of meat-eating. Do you think I will get somewhere imposing this upon the SES?

I also want to say to JAMR that I am not on a ‘crusade’. All I ever intended was to try to make the issues transparent and to try to persuade them that equal status between the genders will benefit everyone once they get over the ‘port and cigar’ attitude to life! It’s so limited! I think this thread has helped to indicate the issues. JAMR has pointed out that there have been many casualties over the gender issue, I did not know there had been so many challenges.


Lets drop the label if this carries too much baggage to be useful. Your intention to get SES to review their stance on gender and replace it with our stance on gender is no different to Christian missionaries driving their religion into Africa, except for the scale and success. You want to impose you view on the members of the SES because you feel that yours is right and theirs is wrong.

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: Another Guru in Deep Trouble

Postby JAMR » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:57 pm

Woodgreen, you said

could you confirm that you are a new member, have recently left the SES ( in South Africa if I read your post correctly) and you spent quite a number of years in there.


I was on this forum for a couple of years in the mid 2000’s. I left the SES in South Africa in 1998. I was a member for around 10 years.

Forgive me asking but it does matter on the Forum, and I will try to respond accordingly , allowing for your own position vis a vis the SES. Unfortunately, no disrespect, I cannot fathom your call to arms to me against food allergies etc. Happy to do so, but not sure what and where this issue has relevance to the SES. Might be a reaction that the SES has provoked - makes us all very sensitive does the SES - so maybe we have gone full circle.


You suggested that I should be taking direct action, or supporting yourself and Bluemoon to get things “right” in the SES. I was wondering what made you think I should do this. If for example you were prepared to assist me with any of my crusades on various things, then it would be reasonable that you would expect similar support. Since you asked if I had the gonads (aka balls) to take on the SES, do you have the gonads to help me address y issues with food intolerances. Ie. I scratch your back, and you scratch mine

You are not reading my posts well and creatively filling in the gaps with your next comments

It seems you were brought up a Catholic ( me too as you know) but suffered some abuse at the hands of the Catholic Church.


I am non practising Protestant, was brought up Protestant, went to a Catholic school, but was not obliged to follow the religion. Suffered NO abuse at the hands of the Catholic Church. Unless you consider caning to be abuse. The priests were an unimpressive bunch, one was a paedophile who interfered with some of the young boys, however as a day scholar (as opposed to a boarder) I avoided this. It was treated rather as a joke by most kids, and mostly they just stayed out of his way.

I am sorry about that. And sorry if this has led you to try and pick holes in my postings about the SES.


There is no link between my schooling and the SES. Its also possible I was abducted by aliens and made to join the SES and this forum, but again no evidence supports this. (please note this is a joke just in case you miss it)

If you want to discuss abuses in the Catholic Church then I'm happy to do so, although I'm not sure this Forum is the right place. This Forum is about the SES, and I don't think we should digress into what we, as you suggest, is our violent agreement, as we probably do agree.


I have no interest in discussing the Catholic Church, I am afraid you have read much into my posts that was not there.

It may be that because of the abuse you suffered you found yourself in the SES, and it may be partly why you are having a go, but in all honesty I don't think this is the place to have a go at another Catholic - just because I have tried to explain why the SES is a Cult against many tests, including those against mainsteam religions, the Catholic Church being one of them? Other than this I cannot see what you are asking.


I do not see any connection between my schooling and the SES, and I am not picking on you or any other Catholics. The only reason I raised the Catholic religion is because they have been recently taken to task for abuses practiced by their priests, also note that they were part of the Spanish Inquisition and gave Galileo a hard time over his heretical views on planetary motion.

Yet this behaviour is not unique to Catholics, Muslim behaviour shows similar excesses, as does Japanese samurai or the German Nazi regime. My point is that religion, cult, government just reflect human nature. The issues you are concerned about are in people, not in the organisations they form, these are just vehicles for the way people are.


Return to “Cults and religious organisations generally”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests