E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Author: David Christopher Lane Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: November 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I
want to go back to the home base now.
David Lane wrote: > Do the meditation, do the practice, and then we can debate the > interpretations.... RICH writes: But you never do David. You just dismiss all interpretations saying that we must doubt and question them. This continual doubt indicates to me that you do not believe there is any validity or reality to them. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Rich, I debate our interpretations all the time. It just appears to be the case that you don't like my doubts of them. I enjoy surfing very much and oftentimes use very enthusiastic language to describe it (inflationary, if you will--even hype), but if someone where to clearly show me that surfing was fundamentally just a dance of fiber molecules on water molecules generated from a wind source thousands of miles away, it would not lessen my "enjoyment" of the sport.... Yes, I think dreams are part and parcel of my brain, yet I still deeply enjoy my dreams almost every night. A neurological understanding of innner visions and sounds is one explanation among many.... It doesn't lessen my enjoyment of daily meditation. As for validity and reality, I can still enjoy the waking state even though I sense it is "body" produced. RICH writes: When there is no end to doubt, there will never be any knowingness. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Perhaps that it would be a wise thing indeed. As Socrates said (or as Plato claims): "All I know is that I know nothing" (a pretty doubtful statement, huh?)" or Nicholas of Cusa: "the unattainable is attained by its unattainment." RICH WRITES: Your philosophy of doubt only suggests that even after a lifetime of experience one cannot really Know unless there is scientific proof. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Actually, even science won't give one that ultimate "knowingness" since even a scientific theory (tested many times) should be open to doubt.... It can always be revised in the future.... I like that open-ended approach.... It keeps us aware for new things and new perspectives, even in religion or mysticism. RICH writes: You avoid stating your opinion of these experiences by side stepping with platitudes like: I have them, I'm all for them, there is no scientific data to prove them, I don't know, ect. To show an attitude of openness you do not say it directly but this is a litany of negation. DAVID LANE REPLIES: I state my opinion all the time. My opinion is pretty obvious and dovetails in many ways with the Tibetan Book of the Dead and the Unknowing Sage: by doubting the inner visions we get a glimpse of their composite structure. That would, according to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, lead to a deeper (not a lesser) insight. Doubting is merely another way of saying: show me More, not less, Proof. I think that is how we progress and that is, ironically, how Eckankar maks the claim that there are "higher" regions..... How to access those? By "doubting" the present one. RICH writes: To clarify your position, I ask a simple yes/no question. Do you personally believe that *any* of the 'inner' experiences such as OBE's, communications with other beings, viewing other planes of existence or states of consciousness, experiencing the Light and Sound, ect. come from or exist beyond the neural synaptic actions of one's brain. DAVID LANE REPLIES: I don't know yet, Rich, since everything I do here in this state is modified by my brain. It does, of course, so happen that when one has an NDE, one can have experiences which appear to make the waking state a "subset" of a higher state. I argued this much, in theory, with Dick some 10 years ago. Indeed, many of my arguments in various magazines (like FATE, of all places) were along these lines. If we do exist beyond our bodies and our brains, then we will know when we neither have a body or a brain. Before that time, however, I must use that very "obstruction" to think critically on these issues. I just happen to think that asking for more evidence and more proof is a wise course.... signed: the gay FBI agent ------------- DICK writes: Bodhi, I own copies of both texts. I've already done the comparisons. Actually, Jay Dunbar (Masters in English, PhD in Education, ex-ECKist, and my former Tai-Chi instructor) fervently walked me through them line by line. (Talk about an exercise in tedium.) Being in the line of work that he is in, plagiarism REALLY bothers Jay. Reminds me of another academic I know. I think he found quite a few more items than you did. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Glad to know that you "found" the plagiarism for yourself, Dick. Yes, I am quite certain that there are "more" items of plagiarism than I mentioned. I felt I had understated my case, as well. DICK writes: No one has replicated LeVay's experiment. The flaws in his experiment were enumerated elsewhere. LeVay drew his conclusions from a limited number of trials. DAVID LANE REPLIES: I don't know how closely you have read LeVay, but he was quite open in his study and asked for much more follow-up. Whether homosexuality is genetic or not, I think it is a very fruitful line of inquiry.... DICK WRITES: Lane drew his conclusions that Paul Twitchell was mainly influenced by Sant Mat from 400 paragraphs. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Nope. That's not where I "drew" my conclusions. I got them directly from Paul Twitchell who wrote about the shabd yoga and Eckankar connection. I also got them from Twitchell's early articles, wherein he writes quite clearly about his Sant Mat indebtedness. Indeed, Twitchell even called "Sar Bachan" (the primal R.S. text) his "Bible." Sorry, Dick, but my conclusions are not merely drawn from the 400 paragraphs found in the FAR COUNTRY (by the way, I have made the claim that 1/2 of the FAR COUNTRY is not from Twitchell's pen--) DICK WRITES: It isn't that your results can't be replicated, unlike LeVay's; it is that you do not go far enough in your analysis to be able to offer anything but a cursory interpretation of the accomplishments of Paul Twitchell. DAVID LANE REPLIES: I will accept that quite easily, since my study has merely "touched" the surface (as you rightly indicate) of Twitchell's extensive plagiarism, deceit, and cover-up. You are quite right. Where we, naturally, depart company is that you find such compilations "accomplishments" where I find them to be just another form of religious bsing..... DICK writes: No, you will not see an analysis of writings by Brunton, or De Sade, or James Mitose, or several others compared to the writings of Paul Twitchell from me. My research is not for publication. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Too bad. I think many would find it interesting. DICK writes: Paul's plagiarism is a non-issue to me. DAVID LANE REPLIES: I can see that by your various posts.... DICK WRITES: Why? I haven't been able to find any religious texts that weren't plagiarized to some degree. If you know of some, let me know the titles. I would be excited to read them in an English translation. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Again, we depart company. I think it is quite valuable to unearth those plagiarisms wherever they may be found (in R.S., I found them in the Radiant Road and other texts). It not only illuminates the genealogy of the guru/group but shows its earthly moorings and not its astral justifications.... DICK writes: My purpose in mentioning Brunton was to point out the narrowness of your research into Paul Twitchell's writings. I wasn't offering collaboration or corroboration. Just offering a challenge. DAVID LANE REPLIES: You are quite correct on this score, since Twitchell did indeed crib from other sources as well: from Edward Schure to Lama Govinda to L. Ron Hubbard. I am fairly confident that much of what Twitchell wrote was plagiarized (sometimes verbatim).... Quite so. DICK WRITES: Bodhi, you haven't scratched the surface, yet. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Precisely. That's why I asked for your Brunton comparisons..... Too bad you won't share.... ------------------------ dlane@weber.ucsd.edu (David Lane) wrote: > > DICK writes? > > Bodhi, > > Why do you keep harping on plagiarism? Name one religion that didn't > plagiarize earlier traditions and writings. > > DAVID LANE REPLIES: > > Hmm, is that your justification for it, Dick? DICK WRITES: Bodhi, There is no need to justify or vindicate an act that is the norm within the history of religion. If plagiarism were a criterion for the elimination of a religion, then all religions would have to be eliminated. Well, almost all. The religion "Academia" would, of course, go unharmed. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Now your thinking, bro..... ------------------------ GLEN quotes and then writes: > Dear Glen: > > Who said "I" was going to sue anybody? **** *** ** a blue ******* dog **** Well this is the first time to my recall that the lawyer threat has been run on a.r.e., and it was was included in your post Mr. Lane and therefore, I felt you owned it . . . for instance if Mr. Corporation was really intent, he could have emailed this himself . . . or posted to the group himself. If he had any **** he would have **** **** up ***** * ***. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Glen, I simply mentioned how Aaron felt about his name being linked homosexuality. He didn't find it funny, whereas I did. I accurately reported Aaron's thoughts on the subject.... Sorry, but that's what he said. GLEN WRITES: As I read it, IMHO, I felt, in my personal perspective, speaking only for myself, as a matter of personal opinion, that your post had a slight scent of the old "my friend is bigger and meaner than you and he's gonna thump you" dodge. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Nope. Just relayed what Aaron stated. By the way, I have NEVER sued anybody in my life, even though I have been sued by Eckankar (and legally hassled for some 20 years) and I am currently being sued by the "church" MSIA. GLEN writes: It appeared to me,IMHO, I felt, in my personal perspective, speaking only for myself, as a matter of personal opinion, that there was a passive aggressive tone to it. DAVID LANE REPLIES: I didn't get offended by Rich's post, Aaron did. I simply and quite clearly mentioned it. GLEN writes: And IMHO, I felt, in my personal perspective, speaking only for myself, as a matter of personal opinion, that this little vicarious muscle flex will result in others being just a little reluctant to rip and shred you as they had in the past. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Why? I never said anything negative about Rich calling me homosexual and putting it caps in his title, even though it is wrong. Again, I said Aaron didn't find it funny. "Vicarious muscle" flex? You better go talk to Eckankar's attorneys about that, Glen..... They have actually sued me and have sued others..... As for Aaron, he hasn't sued anybody in Eckankar or in newsgroups. GLEN WRITES: I've even heard rumblings of a complete boycott of replying to all posts from Mr. Lane. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Would that be because I am 1) Gay? 2) a Gay FBI agent? 3) Hitler? 4) Kal? 5) none of the above? 6) Bozo? Or because I mentioned that Aaron Talksy didn't like being called a homosexual on an international newsgroup when it wasn't true? Hmm...... Given this modus operandi of "boycotting" (report that a friend doesn't like being called gay when he isn't), then by all means boycott whatever I write..... Nothing intelligent will sink in anyways.... GLEN WRITES: You call it lawyer humor but it was not Mr. Corporation who made the passive/aggressive joke here on a.r.e. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Yes, and it wasn't AARON who posted that "LANE ADMITS to being GAY with his friend AARON"..... good thinking, here, Glen.... GLEN quotes Lane and then writes: > > I merely said that Aaron was thinking about it..... Which IMHO, I felt, in my personal perspective, speaking only for myself, as a matter of personal opinion, was a passive agressive way of thumping Rich. There was a time you would have thumped him with your superior wit. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Passive-Aggressive? Hmm, Nope. Just reported what Aaron thought..... Sorry you didn't like the fact that he didn't like being called gay. I found Rich's post funny..... But then again, I am the Kal power....... GLEN quotes Lane and then writes: > > And, lest you forget the "humor" in my words (in honor of Rich), > > Aaron was not serious....... But IMHO, I felt, in my personal perspective, speaking only for myself, as a matter of personal opinion, that was not the way you presented it sir. There were no smiley faces on that sentence on my news server. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Oh, yes, I get it: Rich had smiley faces ALL over that heading...... GLEN WRITES: This has been a week of disappointments. I've always admired you as this rogue scholar who chose to wallow in the trough with the rest of us commoners. Sorry Sir, but I believe your Ivy League is showing. The surfer dude doesn't stare us down all alone after all. He has a lawyer acquaintance for back up. Tsk tsk. What a pity. Yet another urban myth shot to hell DAVID LANE REPLIES: A lawyer acquaintance to "back" me up for what? He happens to be my best friend. My dad was an attorney. My sister is an attorney. My brother-in-law is an attorney. is a Clerk of the Court. My guru was an attorney..... Amazing how humor can be lost on those who are threatened by it (gays vs. lawyers?). Rich's humor wasn't lost on me, but it was on Aaron. Aaron's humor wasn't lost on Rich, but it was on you. Joking is indeed an art, and sometimes we get it and sometimes we don't. If my post on Aaron disappointed you, then Glen I should send you my Eckankar legal threats..... signed: Boycott Lane Now Committee -------------------------------------------- DAVID LANE writes: > There are a number of new replies on the neural surfer to what > is happening on ARE > http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point4.html > Note to Glen: I never said i was going to sue anybody. GLEN WRITES: I ackowledge that you did not say this, but you played the "lawyer card" not Mr Corporation. DAVID LANE REPLIES: "Played the lawyer card"? Nope, merely mentioned Aaron's feelings about wrongly being called Gay on an international public newsgroup. I found Rich's post funny, Aaron didn't.... Sorry that disappoints you so much. GLEN writes: Perhaps Mr. Corporation mentioned it to you personally, but you were the one that expressed it to this group. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Yep, and Aaron didn't post that he was gay on this group either. Rich did that. In both cases, the humor was lost on those who saw a threat in it. To those who are not threatened by either (gays or lawyers), there may have been some laughs to be had. GLEN WRITES: And in the back of my mind, and everyone here now, will be the germ that Mr.Lane has lawyer back up, so go easy on him. DAVID LANE REPLIES: This is so silly, Glen..... Easy on me? Have "you" been sued by Eckankar? Have you been legally hassled by Eckankar for 20 years? Are you currently being sued by MSIA? I don't think so...... And, yet, I have NEVER sued anybody in my life...... So lighten up, Francis (clue: think STRIPES and Bill Murray). Lawyers aren't that scary, bro.......... GLEN WRITES: Gone are the days of carefree shredding and ripping. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Sure, Glen...... I am quite confident that I will once again be called Hitler like, Kal like, or even Passive-Aggressive in future posts..... Sorry, but my "Aaron" posting was not intended to stop the free-for-all. But by all means, go head and boycott whatever you wish. GLEN WRITES: You've re-classified yourself from a hard hitting heavyweight to a love slapping featherweight. . . IMHO, in my personal perspective, speaking only for myself, as a matter of personal opinion. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Hmm... Now instead of being Hitler-like and a Bozo, I can now feel lucky to a slapping featherweight..... Glen, you really do need to develop your humor skills.... lighten up...... nobody is going to sue anybody................... but then again, perhaps you should give this same exact humorless warning to Eckankar itself..... They definitely do need the advice... GLEN writes: Like I said previously, I am disappointed. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Disappointed that Aaron is not going to sue or disappointed that Aaron is not gay? see, Glen, i am ribbing you here (that's called teasing.... it is also called humor..... oops). GLEN WRITES: But then I guess urban myths are made to be shattered. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Boy, if i knew you held me in such high regard, I would have stopped Aaron from filing that lawsuit against you where you called me a passive-aggressive guy..... I am teasing, Glen......... so relax signed: I boycotted Lane and Bozo ------------------- GLEN STEVENS wrote: > I've even heard rumblings of a complete boycott of replying to all > posts from Mr. Lane. RICH writes: I think it is a wise course of action. Who else feels these rumblings? I didn't know he had a lawyer monitoring us..... DAVID LANE REPLIES: Monitoring whom? Geez, Rich, go re-read your posts..... Aaron isn't monitoring anybody.... He simply didn't like your sense of humor, whereas I found it funny.... And, lest you forget, "humor" (or the lack of it) is what has caused this most humorless of threads.... Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no lawyers monitoring here for me.... But I do know that Eckankar has..... I was legally threatened by the Eckankar Corporation concerning Dave Rife's homepage.... Maybe you should take up your legal monitoring issue with them.... I think they know more about it than I.... RICH writes: Besides he just uses the same old Lane arguments he has been touting for years. Then he puts them up on his web site in a vain attempt to impress his students with how witty and logical he is. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Hmm..... Impress my students with wit and logic via Eckankar? I never knew that Eckankar had either (just teasing), though I do know that it has students who like to call its detractors "Gay" "Hitler-like" and "Kal." RICH WRITES: Why give him the satisfaction? If we boycott him, there will be no fun for him here. He will not bother to post unless he can argue or debate and bolster his vanity with satisfing his contentious nature. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Hmm..... Yea, I get that real boost to my vanity everytime I get death threats, everytime I am called Hitler, Gay, Kal, and Bozo.... Geez, what would I do without that "upliftment"? I know: spend more time with king neptune............. you know, the guy who is as real as Gakko........... ----------------------- DICK WRITES AND QUOTES: > > In article <880165544.14102@dejanews.com>, rfpickett@naxs.com wrote: > > > > > Just in case Kent is still wondering how Aaron made it onto a.r.e.: > > He informed Lane of the group's existence. > > He provides free legal council to Dr. Lane on the subject of plagiarism. > > > > He's kinda' like Dave's silent partner. > > > > > > Yeah but why would Mr. Corporation's name (YOU say his name if you want > to, I'll stick with Darwin's example:) show up under a pile of Dr. Lame's > posts. Are they there with meta-tags or something? > > -- > ???????????????????????????????? > > Whose cruel idea was it to have an "S" in the word "lisp". Dear Glen, Professor Lame put Aaron Talsky's name in those posts. That is how they got there. AltaVista found them. What I can't figure out is why a guy with a law degree from Harvard that drives a Jaguar can't afford his own Internet account. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Who said he didn't have his own account? I merely mentioned that he shared mine. DICK WRITES: Then again, I can't figure out why a guy with a Harvard law degree would enforce a vegetarian diet on a dog. Poor Basho. DAVID LANE REPLIES: Aaron has a similar problem: he can't figure out how an intelligent person can believe Paul Twitchell's fictions.... just goes to show you.
