3087Re: Joan Goes To Men's Restroom-HK Goes To The Women's?
- Jan 2, 2008"Practical Skepticism is Based on Common Sense"
[David Hume]. Shouldn't ECKists take a Common
Sense approach to what they read, see, and hear
coming from their "ECK" Leaders and Mahanta?!
Formal logic, as most people learn it, is deductive
rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to
have created systems of inductive logic, but it is
controversial whether a logic of induction is even
possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions
arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily
have the same degree of certainty as the initial premises.
For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is
false, but may have been thought true in Europe until
the settlement of Australia, when Black Swans were
discovered. Inductive arguments are never binding
but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively
invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only
if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to
be true whilst the conclusion is false.) In induction there
are always many conclusions that can reasonably be related
to certain premises. Inductions are open; deductions are
It is however possible to derive a true statement
using inductive reasoning if you know the conclusion.
The only way to have an efficient argument by induction
is for the known conclusion to be able to be true only
if an unstated external conclusion is true, from which
the initial conclusion was built and has certain criteria
to be met in order to be true (separate from the stated
By substitution of one conclusion for the other, you
can inductively find out what evidence you need in
order for your induction to be true. For example,
you have a window that opens only one way, but
not the other. Assuming that you know that the only
way for that to happen is that the hinges are faulty,
inductively you can postulate that the only way for
that window to be fixed would be to apply oil (whatever
will fix the unstated conclusion). From there on you
can successfully build your case.
However, if your unstated conclusion is false, which
can only be proven by deductive reasoning, then your
whole argument by induction collapses. Thus ultimately,
pure inductive reasoning does not exist.
The classic philosophical treatment of the problem
of induction, meaning the search for a justification
for inductive reasoning, was by the Scottish philosopher
David Hume. Hume highlighted the fact that our everyday
reasoning depends on patterns of repeated experience
rather than deductively valid arguments. For example,
we believe that bread will nourish us because it has
done so in the past, but this is not a guarantee that it
will always do so.
As Hume said, someone who insisted on sound
deductive justifications for everything would starve
Instead of approaching everything with unproductive
skepticism, Hume advocated a practical skepticism
based on common sense, where the inevitability of
induction is accepted.
Induction is sometimes framed as reasoning about
the future from the past, but in its broadest sense it
involves reaching conclusions about unobserved things
on the basis of what has been observed. Inferences
about the past from present evidence for instance,
as in archaeology, count as induction. Induction could
also be across space rather than time, for instance as
in physical cosmology where conclusions about the
whole universe are drawn from the limited perspective
we are able to observe (see cosmic variance); or in
economics, where national economic policy is derived
from local economic performance.
Twentieth-century philosophy has approached induction
very differently. Rather than a choice about what predictions
to make about the future, induction can be seen as a choice
of what concepts to fit to observations or of how to graph
or represent a set of observed data.
Nelson Goodman posed a "new riddle of induction"
by inventing the property "grue" to which induction
does not apply. [end]
> Doesn't it seem like there is a Lack of Communication
> between these two (Harry & Joan), as well as, a problem
> with bladder control (lower chakra health)! One's a 14th
> Initiate and the other a 9th Initiate and yet most average
> couples (non-Eckists) communicate better and are more
> capable than these two goofs!
> Can't HK go into the men's restroom with Joan?! Sure! And,
> where's that "inner (and outer) communication" to Know where
> Joan is? Where's the Mahanta's "intuition" and "insight" for Harry
> Not to know the men's room was locked because Joan was in there!
> Is the Mahanta Consciousness limited to KNOWING these things!
> It's ridiculous! Klemp is a mini-master scammer! One can see the
> "proof in the pudding" that ECK Initiations are Bogus! Would this
> comedy of errors happen to Rebazar? Would Rebazar get "punked"
> by the KAL? Of course Not!
> Klemp is Not a real Master anyway, and Rebazar is a fictional
> character created by Twitchell in order to "initiate" himself!
> Is "imagination" proof, especially, someone else's? Why believe
> that Twitchell was incapable of lying about Eckankar when he
> lied about his birth date, Who's Who info, etc.? Use Common Sense!
> Klemp is also a liar, as well as, deluded because he knows he's
> no God-man let alone the Highest! Yet, he promotes himself
> as the highest authority over all!
> Plus, just read the stupid stories sent to The Mystic World,
> H.I. Letter, and RESA Star! These H.I.s are talking about
> really basic stuff as though it's a revelation in consciousness
> and a miracle due to the Mahanta interceding for them! One
> can read these same type of stories, if not better or greater
> ones and examples of faith, from other religions that Eckankar
> views as lesser (lower) spiritual paths! Eckists really need to
> get out more with non-Eckists and read more non-Eck books.
> And, everyone really need to take people off those pedestals...
> no one should be placed Higher (or lower) than Oneself!
> prometheus wrote:
> > In the 12/2007 Mystic World Sharon Kunin's
> > article is Damage Control for Klemp's 2007
> > EWWS "RESTROOMS ARE UNISEX" comments!
> > Sharon's article begins on page 1 and is titled,
> > "A Year of Blessing." On page 7 Sharon states
> > that Klemp walked into the women's restroom
> > where:
> "... he (HK) encountered a very alarmed
> white-haired woman standing at the sink.
> Excusing himself, SRI HAROLD RETURNED TO
> THE MEN'S ROOM JUST AS JOAN EMERGED..."
> > Now how does this... Oh! er excuse me madame!
> > "Change" her consciousness? What happened to
> > "Restrooms Are Unisex!"
> > Or, did HK follow the Law of Silence and whispered
> > or whimpered to himself, under his breath, Restrooms
> > Should Be (are) Unisex Damnit! I Have Spoken!!!
> > Maybe Klemp only shared his thoughts of what he
> > wanted to say to that "Alarmed" white-haired woman?
> > Maybe it was all made-up and he lied that he had said
> > anything.
> > Maybe this is what Sharon is really pointing out. Klemp
> > lied to ECKists at the 2007 EWWS and never told that
> > woman that Restrooms Are Unisex!
> > I guess that the Holocaust didn't happen either!
> > Or maybe, the Klemp's, the ESC and RESA Police
> > are trying to re-write ECKANKAR History with this
> > Damage Control! Almost everyone was embarrassed
> > by Klemp's stupid comments and this generated
> > a reaction of mass disapproval by the more sane ECKists!
> > Although HK is out-of-control the EK Board can't
> > do anything about it like they did with Gross! They
> > allowed Klemp to restructure things giving himself
> > sole authority. Too bad so sad! But what goes around
> > comes around... that's karma isn't it?! LOL!
> > I wonder what ECKists are thinking about this
> > rewrite by Sharon Kunin which was approved
> > of by both Joan and Harold? Do they think that
> > this will make things better or that HK's nutty
> > comments will all go away? I'll bet the tape of
> > that talk gets edited along with the written version
> > of it in the next Mahanta Transcripts!
> > If there wasn't anything to hide (change)...
> > Why Are They Doing This?!
> > Let's just "change" Truth into Fiction... this seems
> > to be the ECKANKAR way of viewing life! Or, maybe
> > ECKists like Mark just "imagined" they saw and heard
> > the Mahanta when it was actually the KAL!
> > Prometheus
> > p.s. HK's comments to Joan to "hush-up" weren't
> > appreciated either by ECKists!
> > On HuChat, Mark Alexander wrote:
> > "I always listen to Harold's talk as if they were Living
> > Shariyat dreams... Sometimes I think people forget that
> > Harold is not just telling stories to get a chuckle, that
> > there is a literal Mahanta... WE are the white-haired lady
> > in the women's restroom that Harold talked about...
> > Even true stories are parables, especially when they involve
> > Harold and Joan.
> > In the restroom story (abbreviated version), Harold and
> > Joan were shopping. Joan went to the restroom, found a
> > white-haired lady waiting for the Women's room. The Men's
> > room was not occupied, so Joan asked the lady why she
> > didn't use it. The women said that it was for men only.
> > Harold said that he and Joan have a policy of using
> > 'any port in the storm.' So Joan went into the Men's room.
> > Meanwhile, Harold comes along looking for a restroom,
> > finds the Men's room locked, so he tries the Women's room.
> > It's unlocked, he enters, and of course the white-haired lady
> > is there. She looks at him shocked. 'But this is the Women's room!'
> > she says.
> > HAROLD SAYS AS FAR AS HE'S CONCERNED THE RESTROOMS
> > ARE UNISEX. HE MUSED THAT HE WONDERED AT HOW THE
> > ECK USED HIM TO CHANGE THE STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
> > OF THE WHITE-HAIRED WOMAN.
> > This story puts a cap on a particularly nice Living Word
> > aspect of this talk. I've seen on many occasions how Harold
> > will say something that will tweak the human consciousness
> > (political or social or eck-related) , then in the same talk there
> > would be a story that addresses what he tweaks. This is how the
> > Living Word works.
> > Earlier in his talk when Joan was singing, she got a little
> > lost in singing the complete song and so it went on longer
> > than it should have. Harold made a comment about her
> > going on like that, and how sometimes at home he would
> > have to say something if she talks too long. It was a very male/
> > female comment...
> > So here we have Harold tweaking us on the male/female
> > thing and then later tells us a story that tries to remind us
> > not to get stuck in male/ female categories. That they are fine,
> > but we should not be like the white-haired lady, stuck in one
> > or the other. We should be thinking Unisex, SOUL, beyond
> > the categories. Change is Change (the title of the talk)... the
> > Mahanta. He is the agent of change sent by the ECK into our
> > bathroom to tweak us out of our stuck, white-haired old lady
> > views. My opinion. Your mileage may vary. Hu Mark_"
> > misha wrote:
> > For those of you wondering what great pearls of wisdom
> > came out of Klemp's recent talk at the eckankar world wide
> > seminar, Mark Alexander has shared some of his impressions
> > of Klemp's speak, calling it "The Living Word." BTW, I find
> > Mark's babbling to be more of his own discomfort in what
> > Klemp said--that he, too, must have been troubled by Klemp's
> > message just as well as the eckists who came up to him afterwards
> > questioning some of Klemp's remarks.
> > > >
> > here's few of my thoughts on what he shared.
> > > >
> > 1. The bathroom story seems recycled as I read something
> > similar in one of Klemp's transcripts years ago . . . unless
> > Klemp still has a thing about bathrooms. It's odd he is directing
> > chelas to do some vahana work in public restrooms now!
> > Personally the whole bathroom talk, Unisex comments,
> > raising a white haired lady's consciousness, etc. is really
> > quite weird--but what can one expect from a guy who
> > disrobed in an airport. Klemp was out of balance then, and
> > he still is out of balance!
> > > >
> > 2. It seems too that he doesn't like women, especially white
> > haired ones! I have to wonder if he loved his mother--or he
> > wouldn't so easily put down an older woman who reacted naturally
> > "shocked" when he entered a women's restroom. Too bad security
> > wasn't called on Klemp for doing this--maybe, he needs another
> > time out in a mental institution since it doesn't appear he was
> > cured from his mental unbalance and inappropriate behavior
> > the first time.
> > Telling chelas on such a large stage that he sometimes tells
> > Joan to quit talking at home, is really arrogant and disrespectful
> > of the one he should love and treasure the most--he certainly
> > is displaying male chauvinism and unloving behavior. Yeah,
> > Klemp talks about a unisex society but yet the male is still
> > dominant! LOL!
> > I think that Klemp inviting Joan to share the stage with him,
> > singing her little song, elevated her, but he also kept her in
> > a subordinate role. Yep, she'll help him keep the power, but
> > he will still run the show! So, much for equal footing--male/
> > female! Klemp is working hard to position Joan as a co-l.e.m.
> > but yet he isn't making it equal! But it is fun to watch his game.
> > I suppose he doesn't want another replay like Gail naming Twitchell's
> > replacement- -Klemp would like it to look more legitimate the
> > next time, in case something happens to him suddenly! : )
> > > >
> > Anyway . . .
> > I especially love the way Mark summed this all up in his last
> > paragraph! Too funny! Klemp is the agent of change going
> > into all and every public bathroom regardless of them being
> > for women or men--by golly, Klemp is going in there and
> > making changes . . . and his chelas are embracing this
> > idea as they too want to help with the change that obviously
> > can be started in such a basic and fundalmental places as
> > restrooms. Hey, just remember if the opposite gender comes
> > into the restroom you are using, don't be alarmed--it' s not
> > any nut or pervert, it's just a nutty, possibly perverted
> > eckist! So much for those special, elevated spiritual teachings! : )
> > Mish
- << Previous post in topic