|
|
|
Brilliant essay Mike, and what you say about the premie postion on Rawat as God-in-a-bod : For myself, I believe that if Maharaji and his public relation people just admitted it: 'yes, that was the vibe at the time, but it was the 70's you know when all kind of stuff like that was happening, and I am sorry for laying such a trip on you but I have left all that behind now...' then he would have a much more easy time. From the emails I get and the people I talk with, it is the deception, the revisionism, which turns them off most. Why does Maharaji and his close followers put themselves into this weird position? It is such a public relations mistake. Having asked the question, here is my own answer: It is because he is still viewed as the Lord!! As the Lord, he cannot make any mistakes of course, so to admit his whole spiel throughout the 70's and early 80's was mistaken is impossible. That just so rings true. And this was one of my own 1980's premie-mind-warpers ... Q:'Why is Maharaji denying his divinity? A: Well of course he is Jesus et al come again. But he wants everyone to get K, and he doesn't want to put off atheists, new agers, Zen Buddhists, little green people from Venus etc etc. So he's keeping the Lord thingy under wraps. (We know cos we were the first ones to recognise him - the true seekers who only incarnated to find him)... This last mind-warp sat rather uncomfortably with the first shall be last and the last shall be first 'idea' that I remembered being bandied about in the 70's.
Modified by moley at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 09:56:02
|
|
|
|
How long can premies accept the cognitive dissonance:
Majaraji is the Lord
He is pretending he's not the Lord because he wants propagation to succeed
Propagation has been a failure since he started pretending he's not the Lord and took over propagation
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike. A couple of editorial comments: Thanks for including my quotes, but perhaps they, along with the Arti comments, could be inserted somewhere more in the middle instead of at the very beginning of the article? Seemed kind of abrupt to me.
Also, in reading it through for the first time, towards the end, where you quote M's claim that "guru is greater than God because guru can show you God", it's stated in such a way as to assume that what guru (in this case M) shows you is actually God. I take exception with that assumption. If the experience of Knowledge is "God", then that automatically gives M some sort of validity. I deny that totally. Perhaps some sort of refutation that the four meditation techniques (with a link to where they are exposed) are a way to experience God should be included, hence deflating even further the claim that guru is greater than God. (But perhaps that's another essay entirely!)
A great article, overall, though.
Modified by Joy at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 11:10:55
|
|
|
|
Thanks Joy.I agree with you about it being abrupt putting your quote and the arti stuff straight after the opening paragraphs. I have changed the paras around a bit now. Let me know if you think that is better. I don't quite get your second point: "guru is greater than God because guru can show you God", it's stated in such a way as to assume that what guru (in this case M) shows you is actually God. I take exception with that assumption. Yes, but this was the assumption, and what he and we meant at the time. That is why it is so powerful quoting it. Most people reading here take exception to it. If anyone reading actually thinks that I am endorsing that statement, that I really think what Maharaji shows you is God, or Knowledge of God (he has said both), then they have not read much of my site, or even much of that particular essay. You have to assume a certain amount of understanding in the reader. Are you saying you take exception to how Maharaji expressed it then? Are you saying you take exception to having it print now? I am not quite sure what exactly you mean. Take care -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike. I guess this paragraph towards the end just left me with the feeling that the experience of K was somehow equivalent to God. The article is mainly about M and his claims of divinity (by himself and others), but not much mention is made of the K being nothing more than Hindu meditation techniques, widely available in many differing formats. (But perhaps that's another article, and on your site already? I haven't looked there recently, I confess.) I know you were stating it as the premies' belief system, but somehow it just didn't read that way to me, without any disclaimer in it.
Perhaps the paragraph could be edited something like:
Maharaji was always held, and is even now still held, to be someone very special with divine powers. It was claimed that his Knowledge can show you God and it will only work by the Grace of Maharaji. This is not a figurative way of speaking, but Maharaji has repeatedly said, and devotees believe, that only through Maharaji can the devotee get the Grace to find the ultimate. The understanding is that no, he is not God, but he is greater than God because he can show you what he claims to be God.
Sorry to be a nitpicker! The whole article reads beautifully now, flows very nicely.
One more little thing: In the two paragraphs of my quote, you start the second one as if it's a second person talking: (Another eye-witness wrote in response) Was this done to protect my anonymity? It might read better without that line, as if it were all one quote. Anybody who was around at the time would know it was me talking anyhow, so no need to split it into two people.
Oh, and congratulations on finding that quote about the leaf moving, so quickly -- good work!
Modified by Joy at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 18:40:31
|
|
|
|
Hi JoyThanks, your suggestion for that near final para is much better, and that is how it now reads. To your second point, I though the 2nd paragraph of your quote was Cynthia speaking replying to you. Now I have gone back to check, I see that it was you *replying* to Cynthia! Thanks for pointing out my error. As I posted to Jim below, all the various inputs from you and everyone else in this thread and the one below have shaped the essay up much better than I could have done alone. Real cooperation! I didn't like it when Joe and Jim started complaining originally, but after swallowing my pride I can see how they were right. That is the value of a forum like this. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike Glad you mentioned Wickywacky and the neutral pov as opposed to the objective pov argument. I think the crux of the matter, though, is pretty much summed up when you say : …because I resent reading how it was all a mistake that we thought Maharaji was God or God-like, and that this was forced upon Maharaji by us premies of the time. And: It is this claim - that Maharaji had no part in propagating his own divinity and demanding our total surrender to him as the Lord - that is what I will not accept. And your essay does a great job in countering the fundamentally dishonest bullshit Rawat, himself, and all his sycophants revel in, regarding the matter. Cheers Dermot
Modified by Dermot at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 10:56:18
|
|
|
|
I think that you have not described the Neutral Point of View of Wikipedia very well. It bascially means that Wikipedia articles - describe what reputable sources have said about a certain subject
- give majority space to majority views. For example, Einstein's special theory of relativity is undisputed, so we do not allow criticism or alternative theories in that article. In the case of small religious groups, it is not clear who is in the majority. Do the critics represent mainstream society who never felt attracted to Maharaji or do they represent only themselves even if they make the same objections now as the media and religious scholars made earlier? Did the media uncritically report on Maharaji? Did the media report the opinions of ex-premies? A lot hinges on the question how Maharaji is seen by mainstream society today, but this is impossible to know, because hardly anybody is interested in him nowadays.
Andries
|
|
|
|
Andries, How can you say that it's not clear who is in the majority? Rawat offered himself to the world in at least one long, protracted campaign ("Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" which culminated in what he ballyhooed as the "most significant event in human history". The world passed. There are very, very few premies. Plus, there's no dispute that of those who joined, very few stayed. How can that not be a reflection of the majority view which is that Rawat, for whatever reason, can't attract the world as he claimed he would, can't keep almost all the few he does attract and certainly isn't saving it or bringing peace to it as he promised either?
|
|
|
|
Andries what you have described is majoritarianism - not neutrality. Einstein's special theory of relativity shouldn't be 'undisputed' because it is accepted by most people - it should only be undisputed if it stands up to the normal tests of experiment and falsifiability. Trying to apply experiment and falsifiability to social phenomena is bound to fail so there is simply no way to make a comparable judgement between an article on social phenomena and an article on an experimentally proved, falsifiable scientific theory - so I can see why a majoritarianist test would be offered as a substitute. But the fundamental challenge to majoritarianism is: "one billion flies can't be wrong" How on earth can any sensible article on anything be written through the lens of Did the media report the opinions of ex-premies? Is this a new Cartesian test ? If a tree falls in the forest it didn't happen unless a reporter was there ? The Rawat articles simply show Wikipedia up as farce - if Wikipedia can't be trusted to produce a simple article about a Guru/meditation teacher/speaker based on material that would be obviously relevant to any one reasonable person - then why on earth should anyone trust Wikipedia on anything ? Nik
|
|
|
|
The Wiki concept is fine for subjects that do not raise very strong emotions. Not since the 1930's has "Jewish science" been challenged by crazed fundamentalists so Wiki can be trusted to proved a resonable page on the Theory of General Relativity.
It's also OK in controversial subjects where proponents on both sides value truth above propaganda.
Unfortunately some, if not most, followers of Prem Rawat put his "welfare" above the truth.
|
|
|
|
NPOV means reporting what reputable sources have said and giving majority space to majority views. If all the scientists are wrong about a certain subject then Wikipedia will be wrong about the subject. Lay people are not counted when assessing who has the majority. Yes, a billion people can be wrong and have been wrong. Andries
|
|
|
|
You know Andries it's a funny thing but the way Jossi reiterates that Prem Rawat never said he was Guru Maharaji reminds me that I've never read or heard Guru Maharaji say he is Prem Rawat. I joined a group whose guru was a young fat kid that everybody called Guru Maharaji. I never heard him say he wasn't Guru Maharaji. He always answered when reporters asked things like "Guru Maharaji, how are you going to bring peace to the world?"
Decades later I recognised this guy on the Internet and now they are calling him Prem Rawat but I've never heard him say "I am Prem Rawat" or say "I am not Guru Maharaji".
See I had this dream in which I was a butterfly and there was a guru called Guru Maharaji and then I woke up and the same guy is called Prem Rawat. How can I tell if I'm really a butterfly dreaming I'm a person and there is a guru called Prem Rawat or I'm a person dreaming I'm a butterfly and the guru is called Guru Maharaji. My only clue is that in both dreams I have a book called "Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji" and in neither dream do I have a book called "Who Is Prem Rawat?" and I keep shouting "Bhole Shri Satgurudev Maharaji Ki Jai!" whenever someone else does.
signed
Dazed and Jossifused
|
|
|
|
Hi EveryoneYet another revision (I have lost count now) but the article is becoming more of a collective effort - and improving greatly as a result. I now acknowledge this in the intro. I have also added several paragraphs to the end of my 'Wikipedia' section, paraphrasing Nik's points and Jim's below. Thanks again - to you two and to everyone else. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
but please come up with something that is better. Personally, I have no idea how to make something better than Wikipedia. Most contributors, incl. me believe that its merits outweigh its very obvious, often self-admitted, failings. Andries
|
|
|
|
>but please come up with something that is better.< The Encyclopedia Britannica !
|
|
|
|
Does the Encyclopedia Britannica have an entry on the Divine Light Mission? Does it have an entry on Sathya Sai Baba? Does it have a good entry on apostasy? No. No. No. Wikipedia's nr. of entries are five times that of Encyclopedia Britannica. Andries
Related link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_britannica
Modified by Andries at Fri, Mar 17, 2006, 12:58:18
|
|
|
|
Does the Encyclopedia Britannica have an entry on the Divine Light Mission?But if it did, it would be a proper unbiased article. You think that Wikipedia's article on DLM does it credit? -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
It is better to have no article than to have false information and propaganda pretending to be an unbiased article.
The weird thing is that the wp big kahunas seem to be aware of the problem as such and discuss it, but don't do anything about it. Every now and then I run into such discussions.
Modified by aunt bea at Fri, Mar 17, 2006, 13:19:35
|
|
|
|
Everybody is aware of the problems of Wikipedia. How to solve them is a different and far more difficult matter. Andries
Modified by Andries at Fri, Mar 17, 2006, 14:06:04
|
|
|
|
Everybody is aware of it.No Andries, they are not aware of it, that is why Wikipedia is so dangerous and harmful. Many many people, schools even, think that WP is the 'peoples encylcopedia' and the great 'neutral' resource, created by the people for the people. They trust it. That is why it has to be stopped, or at least changed dramatically. How to solve it is a different matter. Why should it be solved? It is fundamentally flawed and wrong, as Aunt Bea has so rationally explained it. It was an interesting experiment initially, full of good intentions I am sure. It has now grown into a monster. As I say, I think there are slowly getting to be enough people who are realising how badly the experiment has turned out, so the only real hope is that it will stop being viewed as such a great resource. As Aunty said below, it has grown too big now. It will only be solved by just crumbling into its own inadequacy. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Fri, Mar 17, 2006, 14:21:49
|
|
|
|
Enough said? We've been here before...... how many times?Wikipedia IS NOT an encyclopedia. It doesn't referee any articles, no matter how silly or inaccurate they are. No peer review, nothing. In fact, if you are a real expert in the subject at hand, you are actively discouraged from making an entry. Why? Because you have a pov? Yeah, the correct pov, the researched pov, the reviewed pov. Mike said it..... many schools actually trust that garbage and it is our kids who will pay in the end. In my searches of the scientific subjects, I have yet to find an entry that is wholly correct. That is a pretty sad commentary, quite frankly. I may find a spelling error or two in the Britannica, but the material is factual to the time of printing. If wiki wants to be a source of real, accessible knowledge, then they should ask for REAL experts to donate their time in making it so and don't allow "just anyone" to modify the content. If you think those experts wouldn't volunteer, you are as wrong as you can possibly be. Moreover, when a subject matter expert puts their name on it, you can bet that it will be as correct as they can make it. THeir reputation is on the line...... darned straight it will be accurate.
|
|
|
|
It came out as about as reliable as the EB, but that they both had serious errors on too many occasions.
Maybe someone has a link to the research, it came out about 5-8 weeks ago I think.
|
|
|
|
Realizing that this could easily go down the slope, I will stop commenting on it here. Hammy, if you would like to carry it forward (if you really think it is worth it to do so), we can go voer to the non-rawat site.
|
|
|
|
Hello Mike, hope all is well with you? Im grand myself!Sure everyday is a new day, yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, the only time we have is now spend it wisely! How wise can we be...now that is the question indeed, indeed! myself and Derek sure now theres a story and a half. 2 premies 3 Children 33yrs. We met in a restaurant named "The Good Karma" cool name ey Mike? He gave me the best chat up lines any fella ever gave me, and believe me ive heard them all! With his bright blue eyes he looked into my irish smiling eyes and off he went with the good old Satsang...have you ever heard of Guru Maharaji says he to me..I have says I, but do tell me more, well he went on..if you"re ever looking for a Love that depends on no one or nothing, its inside you and Guru Maharaji can show you how to go there! God above almighty says I to myself..sure thats great news altogether, well at that young age i was sure there was no Man on the earth could show me a Love that depended on nothing, so me Mike I had nothing to lose! I went to the satsang every night for the next 2 weeks, then off I hitched to Belfast to get the Knowledge! I remember when the light was revealed to me the Mahatma said..do u see light..yes says I, but its only the light im used to seeing, just in case I wasnt getting it right! He went on to say to me..vocus on this light and u will experience a lot more.well Mike me being a very curious person naturally i did exactly as he advised me to do, i liked the idea and decided to check it out What can I say after that,about that, and thats a fact, now wheather anyone cares to believe it or not, now Mike sure thats another story entirely no doubt!I like writing on the forum and its a fantastic idea, it gives people a chance to communicate with each other and share what they feel in relation to Maharaji,Knowledge, Mahatmas,Premies,Elan Vital and last but not least the Volenteers! Service of any kind has to be done out of kindness! I always loved sitting up the front of the hall when i went to see Maharaji, but God above almighty what a job...still I always managed to get there and sure that was the main thing as far as i was concerned! Thank God my Parents thought me how to stand up to injustices! Head and Heart! There was a Saint in India named Mira Bhi devotee of Lord Krishna, wonder does anyone know her full story? Chararanand used to tell us great storys, "well they were great to me anyway" uve been to Ireland enough times so U must understand the Irish English! Did you know Mike that Irish English is different to English English? Some of the X premies are gas altogether! Thank God im not easily offended, sure if I was ide be in floods of tears, but im not,some of them give me a great laugh! I like the way everyone is free to say what they want to each other, not like the volenteers, they thought they had all the say,forgetting we"re all in the same boat! Im glad i confronted as much as i did! I dont attend programmes the boys barred me for not obeying them, but sure God almighty didnt they realise Maharaji is the one I if only they would listen to him, they could then learn what service is! Service is an experience of Love,its not what we do its where we're at when we do it! Thanks Mike I like the forum. Love and Best Wishes Julie.
|
|
|
|
Hi JulieThanks for your post - I'll reply more fully later on, I'm just off to bed now. But before I do, is this why you are posting here: like the way everyone is free to say what they want to each other, not like the volenteers, they thought they had all the say,forgetting we"re all in the same boat! Im glad i confronted as much as i did! I dont attend programmes the boys barred me for not obeying them Are you saying that the premies have banned you cos you didn't obey them? Would those 'boys' be the security guys at programmes by any chance? In other words, are you posting here on this Forum because the premies won't have you on their's? Just wondering! We can chat later. Take care -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Ah Mike of cource not,im posting here just because i like the open communication! Im a very happy person and always have been, sure i have nothing against anyone. Good Night and have a good rest. Love Julie.
|
|
|
|
Hi Julie I agree with you, it is important that people volunteer to do good things for other people. Many of us here I know do and it feels good. I don't agree with you that volunterring doing things for Prem Rawat is a good thing however. But each to their own I guess. Funny you mention Charanand. I have met him several times, well I mean in addition to listening to him giving satsang and singing. Nice guy, I always thought, hey you know once he came round to my place and cooked up a great big Indian dinner for all of us. Very nice meal! But I went off him a lot much later, when I found out a little secret of his, well it was a big secret actually. I'm sitting here and wondering if I should let you in the secret, I'm hesitating as I don't really want to cause you pain. But I guess I need to because I don't really like nasty little secrets being hidden. I'm sure you will agree with me. Well anyway, the secret that Charanand does not want people to know was that while he was called Mahatma Charanand Ji (or more commonly as Guru Charanand), you know when he was supposedly completed dedicated to Maharaji and leading a life of poverty, chastity and obedience, he was having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old daughter of some premies in Los Angeles. Well Julie, I'm sure you understand why I went completely off Charanand when I heard that. It is all to do with the complete abuse of his position and the violation of a child. I know this is totally true, it was not gossip or something, it was told to a friend of mine who was friends with the girls parents in LA. It's shocking Julie, really shocking, but that is what dirty secrets that people want to remain hidden are. Shocking! (there you have got me into your habit of using exclamation marks!). T
Modified by T at Fri, Mar 17, 2006, 17:07:06
|
|
|
|
Hello T, I again dont know anything about Charanands personal life, nor his interactions with people around the world, all I know is the many times ive met him over the last 33yrs ive found him to be a nice person, and i have always found the storys he tells nice. In relation to how he lives his life as an old Man im not sure, in relation to his interaction with others I also dont know, all im saying is I personally always found him to be a humble Man full of inspiration! thats my experience and if anyone tells me things about you in the future, i will ask you as u would be the best person to talk about you! It is schoking T when anyone upsets any child its very sad, all im saying is im not into talking about Charanand or any other person in this way unless the person is also able to comment on what they are accused of. ive heard things about people in the past that were totally untrue, and thats a fact T. Keep Well, Love and best wishes Julie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!X
|
|
|
|
Modified by hamzen at Sat, Mar 18, 2006, 02:00:02
|
|
|
|
And that's why you're in a cult. Take the Irish parts of your posts out and pretty much word for word, and I mean all your key phrases are exactly the same.
It's pretty clear to me that her reading of the cult was exactly the same as yours, and her reasoning about it all being the premies fault not understanding knowledge I suspect exactly the same.
But the whole deck of cards rests on prem being above all that.
So I suspect you're here as a test of faith, and if so courageous in a warped kind of a way.
Because believe there is plenty of evidence, and watching you skip and avoid avoid avoid will be highly amusing.
I'm also intrigued to know how your views go down on the premie forum.
Oh by the way, just in case it hadn't occurred to you, there are also people here who 'got' knowledge in the way that you do, and it still works when you take prem out of the equation exactly the same.
And as an experiment in proving you are the re-incarnation of my ex I have written down what your response will be, we'll see how accurate I am.
Modified by hamzen at Sat, Mar 18, 2006, 03:22:23
|
|
|
|
Carol wouldnt have hung around here trying to 'give satsang'. Have Ron Geaves and Robin Heslop paid up yet for all the logding and food she provided them when they used their PAM status on her?
|
|
|
|
but I suspect that would only be because of lack of confidence.
She certainly gave exactly the same responses as Julie to me, and in fact even when close to death, and knowing VERY clearly the way I felt, still thought everything that had gone down was all about bringing people to gm, or doing his service.
Right near the end when she coulkdn't get to grips with what was happening to her, she thought her illness was to bring us all together to do work for the Lord, and proceeded to tell me so for 2 hours, comletely unaware of how I was very obviously feeling, and completely oblivious, or uncaring, about the fact that I was finally schtum because of her condition.
I guess all those years when I was no longer interested, and made it quite plain, so she finally stopped trying to satsang me, just had to come out.
Re Robin and Ron, did they never leave any dosh there ? Most people did if I remember?
Bee in the bonnet maybe 
To be honest, it's John that should be re-imbursed, but the last thing I heard he was grateful for it because it completely shook up his life and got him out of a rut. He ended up in Arizona or somewhere new agey like that, earning a living from it all, and fathering a kid at 70.
Oh for a video of that house then, complete insanity really.
Whatever happened to Jason I wonder ? And that gorgeous Israeli Russian girl I had the crush on, what was her name, something like Romulla? Not sure.
|
|
|
|
Whatever else, don't give into the lure of the exclaimation mark. It's like the dark side of the Force. Neville B
|
|
|
|
This has been really disturbing me since I read it. If Charnanand was doing this it is another case of an Mahatma abusing children. What happened? Who was this one reported to? Who knew? How is the girl?
|
|
|
|
>Wikipedia's nr. of entries are five times that of Encyclopedia Britannica. < Five times too many - Andries I know you've put a lot of work into those article but they are still utterly flawed, dishonest, misleading and plain wrong. And there is no way to put them right because the rules and the dynamic of Wikipedia prevents it. Better no article than an article based on falsehood. N
|
|
|
|
Hi AndriesOf course it is easy, because to anyone with a normal stance to the world it is so obviously biased. The point is that there is *no* one 'NPOV' which exists for a contentious social phenonemon. For a topic which is either non-contentious, or which is 'scientific' (meaning which can be tested in a scientific manner), then I think Wikipedia produces some good articles. But for contentious social topics (not 'scientific') the Wikipedia rationale is fundamentally and seriously wrong. It cannot ever reach its stated aims. On top of that, how can any organisation that keeps editors like Dr Ed and Zappaz, prejudiced beyond belief, as editors? Such an organisation deserves no respect. Andries, why are you so defensive of Wikipedia, it is like you left SSB and then you got in another cult again! Fortunately, there is a growing understanding how bad and misleading Wikipedia really is. On several different boards I am reading people are all realising the same thing - on contentious issues, only fanatics have the time and energy to get their viewpoints in, and the editors are so full of political correctness and postmodern so-called 'academic' ideas that they just let the fanatics, on any topic, win. It is outrageous Andries, and it does you no good at all to be defending such a harmful and negative enterprise. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Aside from all the observations made here about Wikipedia with which I agree, Wikipedia is not safe for children. One cannot depend upon amateurs to write about anything, especially science! Most important, there is subject matter that's completely inappropriate for kids. If an encyclopedia cannot be safely referred to children, then what good is it? Btw, I love the so-far version of your essay. C
|
|
|
|
First of all, for those that aren't aware of this, the technology on which wikipedia is based was not invented by the founders of wikipedia. It has existed since 1995.
The idea of a community-based online encyclopedia is obviously intriguing, and wikipedia certainly is amazing is some ways. But it is only one of many forms such an online encyclopedia could take. It is very flawed and I can't see how it will not get worse as it gains in popularity unless it is radically changed. That is probably impossible at this stage. The problem lays squarely on the shoulders of its founders and their at best naive principles of self correction. There is nothing to prevent another group of people from starting a new online encyclopedia using similar technology but avoiding the pitfalls of wikipedia.
Some of those problems, as I can see them are that wp:
1. discourages the participation of academics and experts. 2. encourages the participation of fanatics and amateurs 3. has little control or review mechanisms 4. those that it has aren't enforced. 5. it has a largely alternative, anti-establishment culture behind it. 6. It makes the assumption that its "algorithm" for editing is self-correcting and automatically leads to a NPOV. In that sense it is utopian. 7. It doesn't seem to account for market forces.
These are really bad qualities for developing an encyclopedia. Obviously the first point, that it discourages the participation of academics and genuine experts is obviously a really bad idea for an encyclopedia. The potentially best contributors quickly walk away in disgust. That is a fact that wiki editors largely ignore or are even happy about.
A few suggestions for improvements from the top of my head. 1. Have some system of qualification before people are allowed to edit. 2. Editors should not be allowed to be anonymous. Perhaps a system like ebay, where you have to have a real physical address, would help solve this. 3. Allow some kind of big time sponsorship, either commercially or from foundations. This would get rid of the weird cultoid aspect of it and give it more resources for professionalism. 4. The most obvious point. It desperately needs some kind of review body to evaluate the quality and accuracy of articles. 5. Let users pay for the damn thing. Like you get some parts for free, but for the full monty you need a subscription. Like m-w.com for example.
Okay Andries, get started.
Modified by aunt bea at Fri, Mar 17, 2006, 13:12:51
|
|
|
|
Hi BeaCan I use your points in my ever-expanding and always on the 'final revision' divinity essay?? It is becoming quite a collective effort now! -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Hi BeaI have added your first seven points to the end of my 'Wikipedia' section of the essay. Let me know if you want them out, or improved in any way. Thanks -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
That's the source of its 'success' and the source of its failure imo.
And because of the new age idealistic tendencies underneath its philosophy will never change fundamentally, it'll be just lawsuits that do that.
|
|
|
|
Your article is entitled:Maharaji's Divinity, The False Academic Denial Of It, And Wikipedia er ... so are you saying that academic denial of his divinity is false? or that any denial of his divinity is a falsely academic? or that only false academics deny his divinity? 
Wouldn't "Maharaji's false divinity - the academic denial" be a step in the right direction. No, wait, that implies that academics think he was divine. Well, I know Greaves does, but ... thinks: am I missing something here? (later - GOT IT! Maharaji's CLAIM to divinity ... etc.)
Modified by cq at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 16:16:20
|
|
|
|
It's grammatically correct in that it says what Mike intends but it's still awkward. Perhaps something like: Maharaji's Divinity Claims: Spurious Academic Denials and Wikipedia or perhaps: Maharaji's Divinity Claims: False Denials and Explanations in the Academic World and Wikipedia or something like that. Anyway, I'm off in half an hour. Court of Appeal tomorrow and then a week's vacation in the Carribean. 6 islands in 7 days. Great price. Much needed. See ya' later!
Modified by Jim at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 16:46:34
|
|
|
|
Thanks Jim, new title as you suggest, much better.You see, isn't this the real Wikipedia in action?! The essay gets shaped by others' input - isn't that what Wiki's philosophy is all about, collectively a better article gets produced than by a single person? -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
I don't know much about the law, and maybe I am ( still! ) naive, but if it could be demonstrated ( in a law court ) that Rawat did claim to be the Lord, would that make him liable to compensate those people who gave so much on account of his divinity - given of course, that he can't prove he is the Lord. Is this why Jossi and others are squirming and fighting so much? Could he be done for fraud?
I never gave money ( never had any, too busy doing service to earn any ), but I would give some of what I have now for a front row seat at the trial.
|
|
|
|
>but if it could be demonstrated ( in a law court ) that Rawat did claim to be the Lord, would that make him liable to compensate those people who gave so much on account of his divinity< In most jurisdictions it would be necessary to demonstrate that a 'reasonable' person could have believed the claims. Laws don't usually protect the willfully stupid LOL Rawat and his little helpers have got themselves into a 'dance of machismo' from which they are psychologically incapable of withdrawing. The Lord has let it be known that he (The Lord) never said that he (The Lord) never, ever, ever said that he was The Lord, so now that he (The Lord) has spoken, what he (The Lord) has said, is what must be. N
|
|
|
|
A few years ago the sister of one of my university lecturers made the national press when she was jailed for a year for fraud. She'd told all her friends she had a malignant cancer and asked them for funds to get her to the States for a life-saving op. In fact she had no cancer, but was deep in dept. The charge was something like: 'obtaining financial gain, goods or services through fraudulent misrepresentation' - an expression that fits M to the ground, no?
|
|
|
|
>'obtaining financial gain, goods or services through fraudulent misrepresentation' - an expression that fits M to the ground, no?< Yes ! However the 'selling' of religious, philosophical, politcial and other beliefs is something that most jurisdictions shy away from legislating over. With something as insubstantial as Rawat's 'teaching' it's very difficult to see what could be challenged as a 'material' basis of the fraud. In contractual terms people get to hear Rawat speak, see DVDs and get taught meditation - the basis is all very flimsy but it's enough to put it in the realms of a 'faith' system in most jurisdictions. A more secure basis for claiming fraud may be in terms of of the proposition that 'education' is being provided - education is something that can be subject to measurement and and assessment of quality - in the UK 'fitness of purpose' applies to the Sale of Goods act and could be argued to apply to Services. Advertising a Service - even one provided by a Charity - that does not provide what it claims could certainly be a basis for a charge of fraud. I wouldn't bet on any Trading Standards Office taking up the challenge any time soon though. Nik
|
|
|
|
It wasn't just money that people gave. It was education, careers, families, and most of all time (often years in ashrams) - all of which people gave up only because Rawat actively encouraged people to believe in his supposed status of being "Lord". He encouraged and actively promoted that belief. Now he denies ever doing so. Yet he lives in mansions around the world, has exclusive use of private jets and helicopters, and runs his empire - all built on the profits he accrued from those claims.A clear case of profiting from false pretences, I'd say, though I don't know what the correct legal term for such a crime would be. No wonder Rawat and EV are so aggressive towards ex-premies. They've got a lot to lose - Rawat his wealth and EV their faith in their "ex"-Lord. Could such a claim be made in the UK courts? Would it be eligible for legal aid? I'd say it's unlikely, but there'd be no harm if someone(s) were to make enquiries ...
Modified by cq at Sat, Mar 18, 2006, 06:36:26
|
|
|
