Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00162)

Wry: But all that was then.

Brian: Don't know if it interests you, but GU Krishnamurti is still very 
much active.

--- In theos-talk@y..., "wry" <wry1111@e...> wrote:
> Hi Brian. The more we all enquire, the more we will change. (I most
> appreciate Leon's message to me on the subject of wonder. It caused 
me to
> ponder very deeply, and there was a big break through that has 
affected my
> whole life. I just read your message this morning, George. It is very
> interesting. I also thank Dalval, whose original message from Sept. 5, 
about
> making bread, inspired me to ask the question about wonder. The 
reason I
> haven't responded yet is that I'm still pondering this subject).
> 
> Brian, I hope you and everyone got the key point of my message, 
something
> about subjectivity and objectivity. It is subtle, yet it is insidious and
> pervasive, the way the institution of Freudian psychology has affected 
the
> way westerners think (handle material). When I choose someone else 
to help
> me interpret or to interpret for me, or when I encourage others to 
choose me
> to interpret for them, this perpetrates both ignorance and authority.
> 
> Interpretation relates to discrimination, something we all probably 
need to
> develop to a higher degree. We do this by verifying an objective 
reality,
> not by analyzing material from out of our own conditioning. This 
means that
> if I believe "God" is an old man with a long beard sitting up in the sky, 
I
> will believe many other things also. But once I get a taste of the plain 
old
> sky and myself alone with it, without a movement away from 
insecurity into
> thought (imagery), I become able to discriminate this from that a little
> more clearly. For instance I may realize that my own insecurity was
> connected to the image of the old man in the sky, or at least to the
> willingness to believe what someone else told me, even after I
> chronologically passed the age of eight and started to approach the 
age of
> reason.
> 
> This race stuff has always turned me off, and it is one of the reasons I
> have not delved into theosophy more deeply in the past. How does the
> average theosophist deal with it? I would appreciate any honest 
answers
> people can give out here. As far as a universal brotherhood goes, that
> seems like an oxymoron. If one develops to the highest possible 
degree, one
> may discover if this is true or not. In the meantime, I do not 
understand
> how the CONCEPT of this performs any function except that of keeping 
people
> from developing. I am curious about what your personal payoff is for
> working on this list, but I do not necessarily expect you to answer out
> here. That is perhaps between you and your "God", and maybe it 
should be.
> 
> One of the biggest problems most people, including myself, have in 
handling
> material a little more objectively is in learning to break things apart.
> When we eat a fish, we do not need to eat the bones also. We can 
take the
> bones out. Same with concepts. Everything is to be verified. But how 
to do
> this? Perhaps we start with a plain house, a plain car, a plain BODY, 
as if
> seen from outside, impartially, without interpretation, AS IT IS. Maybe
> later we get to ideas. Madame Blavatsky's material, like anything else, 
is
> grist for the milll of a mature discrimination. We do not need to and
> cannot understand everything she was doing way back then. She may 
have
> needed funding to support her work, and, for this reason, designed 
things
> in a certain way. We must remember that from her activities and other
> interconnected factors was eventually fruited a KRISHNAMURTI, who, 
in my
> opinion, was one of the greatest spiritual teachers humanity has ever 
known.
> He shucked off theosophy, as a butterfly shucks off a cocoon, but he 
also
> EMERGED from it. But all that was then. This is now. Every action is 
time
> appropriate. The less my movement is correlated to a living now, the 
less
> likely I am to meet "the masters," whatever that may mean to me. ---
--
> Original Message -----
> From: "brianmuehlbach" <brianmuehlbach@y...>
> To: <theos-talk@y...>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:21 AM
> Subject: Theos-World Freud, fraud, and the White Brotherhood.
> 
> 
> > Wry: We have learned, in the last twenty years, that childhood 
sexual
> > abuse is really quite common, not an oddity.
> >
> >
> > Brian: Giving Freud's faking the "Oedipus Complex," by continuing
> > to attribute it to his patients it did the opposite of helping.
> >
> > That is where Masson's publication of the Freud/Fliess letters
> > deserve credit. It uncovered a scientific fraud on the cost of one of 
the
> > most important assets in the world we have, children.
> >
> > And yes true, and even when even more fraudulant then Freuds 
fraud,
> > many people indeed firmly believe that Blavatsky materialized cups
> > and saucers and that the "Mahatmas" are right when they claim 
that
> > about 80% of the world population today belong to "fallen degraded
> > semblances" :
> >
> > "The highest race physical intellectuality is the last sub-race of
> > the fifth - yourselves the white conquerors.
> > The majority of mankind belongs to the fallen, degraded 
semblances of
> > humanity", and belongs to the fourth Root race, the degenerated
> > Chinaman, Malayans, Mongolians, Tibetans, Javanese, , etc., etc.,
> > etc."
> > K.H. (The Mahatma
> Letters)
> >
> > Wry: Believers will believe unless you give them something to 
replace
> > it with.
> >
> > Brian: Can you demonstrate it ?
> >
> > My suggestion is that coupled with its claimed "Atlantean" or
> > even "Lemurian" antiqity, the idea that these teachings are 
mediated
> > by a Brotherhood of perfected men wich has watched over the 
unfolding
> > of human evolution "from its inception," maybe has something to do 
with
> > the belief.
> >
> >
> >
> Brian
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@y..., "wry" <wry1111@e...> wrote:
> > > Hi Brian and Everyone. Sorry, but I sent a messed-up and 
incomplete
> > draft by mistake, so here is a better copy.
> > >
> > > I mentioned Jeffrey Masson in a particular CONTEXT, to illustrate
> > a
> > point, so, to go into the subject a little further: For those of you
> > who
> > missed out on the huge flap (stink) that Masson, one little person,
> > caused for an institution, that, in his opinion (and mine) had had
> > and
> > was continuing to have a subtle, pervasive detrimental effect on
> > human
> > society. Let me go into it a little. It has been many years since I
> > examined this material, but I think my memory is pretty clear. I do
> > not
> > know if, as you say, the institution of Freudian psychology
> > "withstood the
> > attack from Masson." I personally believe his actions greatly
> > weakened
> > this institution. As a direct result of an association with him, the
> > works of
> > the German psychoanalyst, Alice Miller, such as "The Drama of the
> > Gifted Child." and "Thou Shall Not Be Aware, Society's Betrayal of
> > the
> > Child," as well as her many other books were translated into English
> > and became wildly popular in the United States, which radically
> > affected
> > people's attitudes toward child abuse and led to the taking of
> > responsibility by adults. Also as a result of this flap, Masson's
> > intelligent,
> > well written anti-therapy books, "Against Therapy," which has 
become
> > a
> > classic, as well as "Final Analysis, The making and the Unmaking of 
a
> > Psychoanalyst," "A Dark Science, Women, Sexuality, and 
Psychoanalysis
> > in the 19th Century," as well as "The Assault on Truth, Freud's
> > Suppression of the Seduction Theory," achieved great popularity and
> > were read by many. I have all these books, as well as many Alice
> > Miller
> > books in my library and recommend "Against Therapy" and "The 
Drama
> > of the Gifted Child" as worth purchasing. "My Father's Guru" was, in
> > my
> > opinion, an insignificant work, and I have not read his series of
> > books
> > about animals, which followed this.
> > >
> > > I get the feeling you have read the assessment you give of Masson
> > in
> > a book and are simply parroting someone else's words. Maybe 
there is
> > some truth to what Daniel has suggested. I come to this conclusion
> > because there seems to be no original ideas in your message to me,
> > and I also do not see what point you are attempting to make that is
> > of
> > any generative value. I used the example of Masson to illustrate
> > something about true debunking and the possibility of changing
> > society.
> > Also, my assessment and understanding of Masson is not copied 
from
> > someone. It is my own. (I still like your posts, though, as they are
> > sort of
> > interesting).
> > >
> > > "Against Therapy" received a lot of publicity due to a very
> > lengthy,
> > much publicized trial, in which Masson sued a popular writer, Janet
> > Malcolm, for some misquotes in an article she wrote about him for 
the
> > New Yorker, which was also published in book form, "In the Freud
> > Archives." This book I also own and I recommend it as an interesting
> > and fun, though perhaps somewhat inaccurate read. This story, 
which
> > tells what happened when Masson became friends with Anna Freud 
and
> > was appointed as secretary of the Freud Archives, took place way 
back
> > when, in the early 1980's, 1981 I believe, and you will read here
> > about a
> > most interesting character, Peter Swales, a "follower" of the
> > teachings
> > of Gurdjieff, and the pivotal role he played in the unfolding of this
> > whole
> > saga by prematurely leaking to the New York Times (at what turned 
out
> > to be perhaps exactly the right moment) Jeffrey Masson's plan to
> > expose
> > Freud.
> > >
> > > The teaching of Gurdjieff is in RADICAL contradiction to the
> > teaching
> > of psychoanalysis, as Gurdjieff emphasized objective physical reality
> > to
> > be the basis of sane, intelligent human experience, and this is a
> > non-
> > analytical model, whereas psychoanalysis emphasizes individual
> > subjective interpretation to be the basis, and is an analytical
> > model. The
> > difference between these two is the difference between building a
> > house
> > on sheer rock and building a house on shifting sand.
> > >
> > > I became interested in Masson at the time of the lawsuit and
> > subsequently researched the story for a recreational pastime, but 
the
> > reason I have chosen to put this material out here is to illustrate a
> > point.
> > This was a situation where a disillusioned person, possibly with 
some
> > kind of bug up his - - - - , (but(t) so what?) saw and seized an
> > opportunity to do something which could potentially have a major
> > effect
> > upon society. There is no point in going into Freud's abandonment of
> > the
> > seduction theory here, but some of his letters relating to this were
> > deliberately suppressed. This was dishonest. Some might say, "but 
who
> > cares? Most of us are dishonest much of the time, anyway." The 
point
> > is
> > that this institution was affecting human society and human
> > relationship
> > in a way that decreased the potential for the average person to
> > become
> > honest and perpetrated authority based on a view of reality that was
> > false, as it did not connect the adult, who was physically abusing
> > the
> > child, to the child. The onus to adjust was on the child, and this
> > did not
> > lead to the transformation of the individual and therefore of society.
> > >
> > > We have learned, in the last twenty years, that childhood sexual
> > abuse is really quite common, not an oddity. There is now an 
emphasis
> > on the taking of responsibility by the adult. IT IS NOT SO MUCH 
ABOUT
> > INTERPRETATION BUT ABOUT REALITY. This shift in viewpoint has
> > affected all aspects of society. This is a direct result of the work
> > of
> > Jeffrey Masson, interconnected with some other factors, but none 
the
> > less incremental to the shift. Psychiatry as an institution is
> > weakened.
> > People do not place as much trust in it as previously. Therapists are
> > not
> > respected to the degree they once were. The point is that Masson 
(and
> > Swales) entered at a juncture that was critical. I cannot see any
> > real
> > point in trying to debunk Madame Blavatsky. If you believe
> > theosophists
> > have a wrong view, there are other approaches you can take, such 
as
> > enquiry, that are more intelligent. It will not make the presses that
> > Madame Blavatsky faked a psychic incident over 100 years ago. It 
will
> > not change anything on this list either.
> > >
> > > Believers will believe unless you give them something to replace it
> > with, but if you tell them another way is true without showing them,
> > this
> > is the same as authority perpetrating belief. Madame Blavatsky did
> > not
> > cause this belief, though she may have contributed to it. There is a
> > dynamic within the individual person. Unless this is explored through
> > an
> > enquiry that is interesting to such person, there is no learning. It
> > is not
> > about what happened before, but about what is happening within 
each
> > of us now. Your habit of so-called debunking, in my opinion,
> > discourages
> > the establishment of any real method by which people might come 
to
> > verify physical reality. Such verification would take place in
> > present time,
> > and cannot be done by looking back. Sincerely, Wry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >