Transpersonal Psychology: Invitation to Dialogue

[freeztar]

Here's my take on this.

 

In my youth, I was very much intrigued with mysticism, the Tao, and such. I often meditated and read lots of new agey stuff (Mayan Prophecy, spiritual awakening, etc.). I had an extreme fascination with Shamans. And then, it just stopped making sense.

 

As I studied Science more, I slowly started to change my belief system. It was a gradual change and one in which I was completely unaware of for the most part. It finally occurred to me several years later that I didn't hold those concepts to the same standard as I used to. As I became conscious of this, I started rejecting my pantheistic belief system and started siding with Science and empirical data.

 

So, when I read this thread, I do understand where you are coming from. Do I believe in it? No, I don't anymore. How hippocritical of me would it be to chastize you for your ideas here? Very! That's not my intention though.

 

I urge you to consider this, Michael. Most people on this forum are scientifically minded. I would imagine that many of these people have never been exposed to TP or the related ideas you have presented here. Some certainly have, and they may well be your worst critics. My point is that from a scientific perspective, what you are claiming is impossible to verify independently. Your experiments with Conscious Unity are not reproducible. Sure, they are reproducible for you, but not necessarily everyone else.

 

My suggestion is to carefully study the arguments of the naysayers. Why do they object? What socio-cultural experiences have led them to so easily dismiss what you have put forward? So, rather than have a knee jerk reaction to harsh criticism, embrace it as a means to educate yourself to be better prepared next time.

 

Think of it this way...(hypothetical situation) I'm a gay rights activist and I'm going to meet with some decidedly anti-gay rights group. We start our discussion and make our points. When they claim that Gays are not really people, I can stand up and call them bigots (for that is surely what they are in my mind) or I can contemplate why these people would say such things. What experiences in their history led them to such a conclusion? How could you convince these people of their ignorant reasoning? Should you? Perhaps it is best to pick and choose the battles that seem most likely to result in mutual understanding rather than stubborn disagreement?

 

These are the questions I'd be asking myself if I were in your shoes. I would thusly frame any further dialogue on these realizations (from questioning). After all, this *is* psychology, right?

 

Just my 2c.

[Michael Mooney]

One more time, just in case anyone has "ears to hear":

 

9. Finally, mystics of all traditions agree that their teachings about the Ultimate Nature of Reality should not be taken on faith alone. Just as scientific theories can be verified by anyone willing to perform appropriate experiments, mystical teachings can be verified by anyone willing to engage in appropriate spiritual practices and disciplines.

 

Now, anyone willing to really study the Center for Sacred Science's website will find complete consensus, and the quotes to back it up, among mystics of all major traditions and those with no tradition, like myself. The realization of this "Ultimate Reality" transcending mere "beliefs is available and verifiable to anyone willing to do whatever discipline that works for them to transcend personal belief and "identity." (See my "this is who I am"... litany of belief in personal identity earlier in this thread..)

 

As for myself, as I have said, it took me 25 years meditating an hour a day before this universal mystic realization/transformation happened.

And now that my website has been invaded (against my wishes) the story of my "final approach" and breakthrough (through a near death experience) is available to this forum.

 

Empirical science does indeed, as a matter of fact, rest fundamentally on human sensation/perception and reasoning about the resulting body of collected data about the world/universe.

 

Likewise mysticism (a central focus for TP) rests on direct realization of unity in identity with "Kosmos" as One Intelligent Being... the body of Whom is the natural cosmos.

Gnosis is realization through "resonant identity" with the object of contemplation, be it a specific "object" or "the whole" in which all objects are parts.

In epistemology, this is called the "a-priori branch" of how we know what we know. Of course it is controversial because those limited to knowledge based on empirical data collection and synthesis have no clue that there is another way of knowing. So it is dismissed by caling it "bullshit" among the least tolerant empiricists.

 

That will do for now. At this point, I really don't know whether this post will also be considered "preaching" or whether it will be allowed as an elaboration on mysticism as a part of TP.

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

Now, anyone willing to really study the Center for Sacred Science's website will find complete consensus, and the quotes to back it up, among mystics of all major traditions and those with no tradition, like myself.

 

This simply doesn't bear out. Consider- many mystics considered the "ultimate reality" or God, or whatever, to be highly personal, and others highly impersonal. I can think of no bigger, more important divide. It cannot be both.

 

Empirical science does indeed, as a matter of fact, rest fundamentally on human sensation/perception and reasoning about the resulting body of collected data about the world/universe.

 

Human reasoning perhaps, but scientists have built equipment that goes way beyond human senses.

 

In epistemology, this is called the "a-priori branch" of how we know what we know. Of course it is controversial because those limited to knowledge based on empirical data collection and synthesis have no clue that there is another way of knowing.

 

Except people disagree on this apriori information. If someone has schizophrenia for instance, they may apriori KNOW that I am a lizard man. Deprive a brain of ozygen and people see a white light, and a tunnel. Give people certain psychoactive drugs, and they have spiritual experiences. Your brain is capable of tricking you. Any serious study of mysticism must include the possibility it is a subjective experience and controlled experiments must be done to attempt to demonstrate one or the other.

 

Consider the following- two meditators I know well have often described to me out of body experiences that they claim are absolutely real. I have often asked to perform a simple test- I place a note on the back or top of their head, and they meditate, go out of body or whatever its called, and read the note. Neither has taken me up on this simple experiment.

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

This simply doesn't bear out. Consider- many mystics considered the "ultimate reality" or God, or whatever, to be highly personal, and others highly impersonal. I can think of no bigger, more important divide. It cannot be both.

 

Belief in a "personal God" is religious belief. The gnosis of mystics from all traditions (and no tradition) from all ages and cultures find, upon transcendence of the illusion of "personal identity" as separate from the "Whole" (by whatever name), that Consciousness is universal and omnipresent... the One, in which/Whom we are all parts as individuals and One With in identity.

E:

Human reasoning perhaps, but scientists have built equipment that goes way beyond human senses.

 

How do we use this equipment if not by using our senses/perceptions?

 

Except people disagree on this apriori information. If someone has schizophrenia for instance, they may apriori KNOW that I am a lizard man. Deprive a brain of ozygen and people see a white light, and a tunnel. Give people certain psychoactive drugs, and they have spiritual experiences. Your brain is capable of tricking you. Any serious study of mysticism must include the possibility it is a subjective experience and controlled experiments must be done to attempt to demonstrate one or the other.

 

This is to say that since some people are "crazy" all that consensus I spoke of above is under suspicion of also being crazy.

Some people are color blind too, but that doesn't render the common experience of seeing the colors of the spectrum as they are invalid.

Consider the following- two meditators I know well have often described to me out of body experiences that they claim are absolutely real. I have often asked to perform a simple test- I place a note on the back or top of their head, and they meditate, go out of body or whatever its called, and read the note. Neither has taken me up on this simple experiment.

 

The universal mystic experience of ongoing epihany has nothing to do with such claims as above.

 

BTW, since the cat is out of the bag, here is the link to my "Meditation" page, as I have experienced it and teach it.

http://www.consciousunity.org/med.htm

Michael

[freeztar]

Your brain is capable of tricking you. Any serious study of mysticism must include the possibility it is a subjective experience and controlled experiments must be done to attempt to demonstrate one or the other.

Well said.

Consider the following- two meditators I know well have often described to me out of body experiences that they claim are absolutely real. I have often asked to perform a simple test- I place a note on the back or top of their head, and they meditate, go out of body or whatever its called, and read the note. Neither has taken me up on this simple experiment.

Fwiw, CraigD posted a while back about a similar experiment. He was able to have an outer body experience, but when he went to read the numbers, they were all garbled, iirc. Hopefully he'll step in and give a link. I can't for the life of me remember which thread that was in.

[Erasmus00]

Belief in a "personal God" is religious belief. The gnosis of mystics from all traditions (and no tradition) from all ages and cultures find... that Consciousness is universal and omnipresent

 

Mystics in the Christian tradition, for instance, speak often of a personal God, and of their transcending experience being filled with a personal God's love. You seem to want to separate mystical claims into two camps, those that agree with you go into the gnosis/knowledge camp, those that disagree into the belief camp. Surely you can understand why this creates a false consensus.

 

This is to say that since some people are "crazy" all that consensus I spoke of...

 

Your consensus is an illusion, mystics of different traditions do not agree on important aspects of their experiences.

 

You also sidestepped my point- the brain can trick you. What FEELS objective and transcendent might not be. Investigation should be done.

 

The universal mystic experience of ongoing epihany has nothing to do with such claims as above.

 

People who have out-of-body meditation experiences claim they are just as real and objective as people who have mystical/transcendant experiences while meditating. Why would treat out-of-body claims as less real than transcendent claims? If out-of-body experiences are tricks of the brain, surely transcendent experiences might be as well? If "transpersonal" psychology wants to be taken seriously as a science, these are the kinds of questions it needs to address.

[CraigD]

Consider the following- two meditators I know well have often described to me out of body experiences that they claim are absolutely real. I have often asked to perform a simple test- I place a note on the back or top of their head, and they meditate, go out of body or whatever its called, and read the note. Neither has taken me up on this simple experiment.

Fwiw, CraigD posted a while back about a similar experiment. He was able to have an outer body experience, but when he went to read the numbers, they were all garbled, iirc. Hopefully he'll step in and give a link. I can't for the life of me remember which thread that was in.

I tried a straightforward experiment in out-of-body perception, with myself as subject, in the early 1980s, and described it at least once at hypography, in Lilly's threshold roaring, Thunderbird and my OBEs. I tried roughly the same experiment years later with clinically dead or nearly dead emergency room patients several years later, which I describe in My humble (but troubled) experiment.

 

My results supported Erasmus, Freeztar, and my own position that the experience of viewing something your eyes can’t see isn’t the perception of objective reality some people claim it is, but rather is an imagining or an hallucination, as skeptics and mainstream scientists assert.

[Michael Mooney]

Mystics in the Christian tradition, for instance, speak often of a personal God, and of their transcending experience being filled with a personal God's love. You seem to want to separate mystical claims into two camps, those that agree with you go into the gnosis/knowledge camp, those that disagree into the belief camp. Surely you can understand why this creates a false consensus.

 

Your consensus is an illusion, mystics of different traditions do not agree on important aspects of their experiences.

 

You also sidestepped my point- the brain can trick you. What FEELS objective and transcendent might not be. Investigation should be done.

People who have out-of-body meditation experiences claim they are just as real and objective as people who have mystical/transcendant experiences while meditating. Why would treat out-of-body claims as less real than transcendent claims? If out-of-body experiences are tricks of the brain, surely transcendent experiences might be as well? If "transpersonal" psychology wants to be taken seriously as a science, these are the kinds of questions it needs to address.

 

At the risk of being cited again for preaching, here is a quote directly addressing your criticism/challenge. It is from Joel Morwood, the spiritual director of the Center for Sacred Sciences, with whom I am in almost perfect accord (and can be found in the "Teachers" section of that site):

 

Some people who have come to me have been disappointed to discover that I have no supernatural powers to transmit, no magic wand to wave, no extraordinary knowledge to dispense which can make them instantly wise, loving, and happy. "Who, then, are you?" they ask. "What's your secret?" My secret can be summed up in one word: Selflessness. Selflessness is the Truth. Selflessness is the Way. Selflessness is the Fruit. In reality, there is no 'you' nor 'I' nor any 'self' whatsoever. There is only Consciousness Itself—the One True God—which is what we are. All that is necessary is to Realize This, because to Realize This is Wisdom, to Live This is Love, to Be This is Happiness. So, if you really want to know my secret, look to your 'self'. In finding the source of your 'self', you will find Consciousness Itself, and nothing else. Then, you, too, will be free of your self and all its sufferings.

 

Enlightenment is not about developing or claiming "supernatural powers" (Siddhis) but rather succinctly summed up in the quote above.

One can find my true testimony on telepathic experiments with my father when I was a child, in my biographical material on my site.

We usually had "runs" of ten out of ten "hits" as I sent images to him out of magazines from one room to another with mother as the coordinating go-between. (She is now 90 yrs old but has verified the truth of these experiments on several occasions over the years.

 

I have also had "real life" telepathic/empathetic communication with my eldest son. The most striking example is as follows:

I was trekking in the wilderness for about a week alone when an image of my son arose in my "mind's eye" along with a burning sensation in my stomach. It finally became very intense, and I hiked out and went home to find that he was hospitalized with a severe bleeding peptic ulcer.

(The only way to dismiss this is to call me a liar, but here again my family can testify to the truth of it.)

 

So, this is something for skeptics to put in their pipes and smoke in a mindful, contemplative, philosophical manner.

 

Never the less, neither example has anything to do with my awakening... the nature of which is perfectly well summed up in Joel's quote above.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

If "transpersonal" psychology wants to be taken seriously as a science, these are the kinds of questions it needs to address.

 

I think that, as presently limited to a materialistic worldview, very little of psychology qualifies as science. Certainly the metaphysical aspects of TP do not.

My B.S. in psych was based on an emphasis, at my undergrad university, on behavioral psych, including learning theory, lots of running rats through mazes and all those reinforcement based experiments.

But there is a good argument that "clinical psychology" (and psychotherapy in general) is not "science" in the way the term is usually used in this forum.

I'm OK with that.

But I do want to remind all empirical scientists here that you do indeed depend on your senses and perceptions... including their technological extension... for the data from which you reason, hypothesize theorize, design experiments, etc. So you ultimately,"trust your senses" individually and as a scientific community to render this materialistic worldview as "Reality."

You can deny metaphysics, but this does not invalidate it per se.

(True, one can not "prove the negative.)

 

As far as positive evidence for "metaphysical claims", most of it is anecdotal, depending on the testimony of those who *experience such phenomena directly* (like sensation but now perception "at a distance.)

You can... and my sense is most here will... deny that I am telling the truth about those telepathic experiments and their positive results with my dad, in my last post... and my direct perception of my son's critical condition at a distance. It simply will not fit within your materialistic worldview.

I'm OK with that too. I have no *need* to convince anyone, but, I am a dedicated... even fanatic... truth teller. Your collective denial of this realm is based on your experience and conviction that the physical world *is reality* and that conversely the "metaphysical realm" is deluded "woo-woo"... or, more harshly stated, "bullshit."

 

I see your "reality" as severely limited "flatland materialism." Fine. You are welcome to cling to your limited definitions of and beliefs about "reality."

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

At the risk of being cited again for preaching, here is a quote directly addressing your criticism/challenge.

 

It doesn't directly address my challenge, it sidesteps it! Finding one mystic who agrees with you does not address the many who do not! The crux of my challenge, again, is that mystics of different traditions disagree, which should not be true if this objective "knowing" is a real phenomenon.

 

One can find my true testimony on telepathic experiments with my father when I was a child, in my biographical material on my site. We usually had "runs" of ten out of ten "hits" ....

 

I don't doubt your sincerity, but I'm positive you could not have reproduced this in a controlled setting- the reason is that no one has ever been able to. If telepathy is real, it should exist between more than you and your father. Someone, somewhere should be able to demonstrate the phenomenon in a controlled setting (and gain James Randi's million dollar prize).

 

I have heard many anecdotal stories about telepathy, etc, but on close examination the subjects involved are deluding themselves. They desperately WANT to believe, and so convince themselves.

 

I won't respond to other things I believe will take this off track, I don't want to get into an argument about what science is, but will finish with a response to this:

 

I see your "reality" as severely limited "flatland materialism." Fine. You are welcome to cling to your limited definitions of and beliefs about "reality."

 

I have had, in my life, to discard many of my beliefs that simply did not hold up to the standard of evidence I have come to require. In a few cases, this was very challenging for me. I can think of half a dozen controlled experiments that would convince me of what you re saying. If these experiments were done well, and the results laid out, I would admit I was incorrect, and once again, my worldview would be forced to change.

 

So I have a question for you- and if this isn't answered I see no point in continuing this conversation- is there any experiment, or evidence, or anything at all that would change your worldview about meditation/transcendence? Is there anything that could convince you that your meditation experience is a trick of brain chemistry and not an "awakening to the truth"?

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus00;269640]It doesn't directly address my challenge, it sidesteps it! Finding one mystic who agrees with you does not address the many who do not! The crux of my challenge, again, is that mystics of different traditions disagree, which should not be true if this objective "knowing" is a real phenomenon.

Not everyone who meditates or does a spiritual discipline transcends the illusion of "separate self"... the ego and its programs, upon which I have sufficiently elaborated in this thread already. Those who do... and the site quotes dozens of them from all cultures and traditions... find the universal realization of selflessness*, as per Joel's statement above, to be true (*One Omnipresent Consciousness... same Identity in all individuals.)

I don't doubt your sincerity, but I'm positive you could not have reproduced this in a controlled setting- the reason is that no one has ever been able to. If telepathy is real, it should exist between more than you and your father. Someone, somewhere should be able to demonstrate the phenomenon in a controlled setting (and gain James Randi's million dollar prize).

 

You have no idea how "controlled" the setting was. In plain talk, I flipped through magazines which my dad had never seen, and sent images from them one at a time on my mother's cue. She then went to the room where my dad was sitting in receptive trance and recorded what he spelled out with an indicatror on an alphabet board. More often than not he would describe each image very accurately.

You can deny it if it doesn't fit into your belief system but it happened exactly as I said.

One thing you don't understand about such sending and receiving is that hostile energy (like "The Amazing Randi"s) can and does spoil the process. We discovered this in hypnosis demonstrations. Snickering skeptics in the audience spoiled the effect, so Dad would ask hecklers to leave, and then the effects would be positive.

 

I have heard many anecdotal stories about telepathy, etc, but on close examination the subjects involved are deluding themselves. They desperately WANT to believe, and so convince themselves.

 

In what way do you believe I was deluded when I "percieved" my son's ulcer crisis at a distance with no known medium of communication between us?

In what way do you believe we were deluding ourselves when my dad correctly percieved 10 images in a row correctly, over and over, as I saw and sent them telepathically?

 

(snip)

I have had, in my life, to discard many of my beliefs that simply did not hold up to the standard of evidence I have come to require. In a few cases, this was very challenging for me. I can think of half a dozen controlled experiments that would convince me of what you re saying. If these experiments were done well, and the results laid out, I would admit I was incorrect, and once again, my worldview would be forced to change.

 

Well, I speak the truth above. You must deny it or change your worldview. We all know your choice.

Also, "The Intention Experiment" is full of dozens of very well controlled experiments verifying various kinds of "action at a distance" which is the best science yet that I know of on the subject, which you deny without even reading the book.

You cling to your belief and bury your head in the sand when new evidence to the contrary is shared with you. You are no scientist, in my book.

 

So I have a question for you- and if this isn't answered I see no point in continuing this conversation- is there any experiment, or evidence, or anything at all that would change your worldview about meditation/transcendence? Is there anything that could convince you that your meditation experience is a trick of brain chemistry and not an "awakening to the truth"?

 

I've said dozens of times that gnosis is direct *knowing* as distinct from mere belief. If you understand the difference, your questions has already been answered many time over, and saying it a few more times will not help. The answer is still "no."

 

I experienced the belief in "my identity" ("This is who I am"... etc.) for all my life before '94, including 25 years of meditation *without such a breakthrough* ... but being "blissed out" for an hour a day was enough to keep me going.

After my awakening the Omnipresence of One Consciousness in all dawned with absolute certainty. Does this finally answer your question?

Do you know for sure that you are seeing your own hand when you hold it up in front of your face? Same level of certainty. If I asked you to deny it.... well... don't browbeat me over what I know for certain either!

Michael

[Erasmus00]

This will be short and sweet. If you want me to go back and reply to anything else, let me know.

 

Do you know for sure that you are seeing your own hand when you hold it up in front of your face? Same level of certainty. If I asked you to deny it.... well... don't browbeat me over what I know for certain either!

 

I can think of a few experiments that could make me doubt whether it is my hand I'm seeing when I hold it up in front of my face. If you want, I can elaborate. I can think of lots of experiments that would force me to doubt various things that I "know" to be true.

 

Is there any experiment, any piece of evidence that would cause you to doubt your "direct knowing"? This is a simple question, and I would appreciate a simple direct answer.

[Michael Mooney]

=Erasmus00;269780]This will be short and sweet. If you want me to go back and reply to anything else, let me know.

Yes. Please at least answer the following, and maybe everything else will become irrelevant:

In what way do you believe I was deluded when I "percieved" my son's ulcer crisis at a distance with no known medium of communication between us?

In what way do you believe we were deluding ourselves when my dad correctly percieved 10 images in a row correctly, over and over, as I saw and sent them telepathically?

I can think of a few experiments that could make me doubt whether it is my hand I'm seeing when I hold it up in front of my face. If you want, I can elaborate. I can think of lots of experiments that would force me to doubt various things that I "know" to be true.

So you are either into semantic sleight of hand or you don't trust your senses to give accurate information, like "I am now seeing my hand in front of my face." The level of absurdity you ascribe to is astounding.

Is there any experiment, any piece of evidence that would cause you to doubt your "direct knowing"? This is a simple question, and I would appreciate a simple direct answer.

 

Maybe you are deaf as well as spiritually blind.

 

...and saying it a few more times will not help. The answer is still "no."

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

So you are either into semantic sleight of hand or you don't trust your senses to give accurate information, like "I am now seeing my hand in front of my face." The level of absurdity you ascribe to is astounding.

 

I have seen several optical illusions in my life,and hallucinated once or twice. If someone said "that isn't your hand in front of your face" and could offer me some simple tests to demonstrate, I may be inclined to agree with them. And look, for instance, at phantom limb syndrome- the hand that isn't there can still itch. Your senses and brain play tricks with you all the time.

 

In what way do you believe I was deluded when I "percieved" my son's ulcer crisis at a distance with no known medium of communication between us?

In what way do you believe we were deluding ourselves when my dad correctly percieved 10 images in a row correctly, over and over, as I saw and sent them telepathically?

 

I have no way of knowing with the level of detail given. I have witnessed both magicians and "mentalists", however, perform demonstrations like the image perception you have described. In all cases I have personally witnessed, there has been a trick. There has NEVER been a case of anyone able to replicate this result in a controlled setting- and hence no written account with enough detail to rule out the existence of a trick.

 

Finally, you state directly that there is no evidence that would convince you of my position. I can, however, be convinced of yours with the proper experiments in a controlled setting. Should we work together to devise some experiments? Or would my "skeptical energies" render this useless?

[Larv]

So you are either into semantic sleight of hand or you don't trust your senses to give accurate information, like "I am now seeing my hand in front of my face." The level of absurdity you ascribe to is astounding.

 

 

Maybe you are deaf as well as spiritually blind.

Michael, you seem to be quite deluded. How do you expect a scientist to react to that last remark? I never see any spooks, so I must be "spiritually blind," too.

[Michael Mooney]

Michael, you seem to be quite deluded. How do you expect a scientist to react to that last remark? I never see any spooks, so I must be "spiritually blind," too.

 

Please read the posts leading up to the remark you condemn.

I have answered this question over and over... quoted yet again in the last post. "No" was the answer over and over. I am as certain of the gnosis being challenged here as any reasonable person is of knowing "This is my hand which i see in front of my face." (This with no tricks up one's sleeve, like a false hand that someone stuck up my sleeve to fool me!)... but...duh!!

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

To whom it may concern:

Freeztar just gave me three more infractions for my last three posts here (earlier today and before).

I will obviously soon be banned, because I am under an extreme gag rule and can not even reply to challenges in a direct and totally honest way.

The archive will show that Freeztar has been very displeased with me for quite awhile since I so rudely offended him (several times i suppose) and is very willing, actually eager to exercise his "power over" me (which clearly really pumps him up!) and dismiss me from this forum ASAP.

He of course will have his way. It's only a matter of time.

I would be interested to know who else sees my last three posts as worthy of "infractions." ( I know you staff stick together but... honestly... if you can muster it!)

 

It would be a breath of fresh air here to have an uncensored forum... like a "Free Speech Plaza" where scientific materialism would not willfully banish all testimony of spiritual experience as not scientific.

Or revise your "Psychology" section to say "excluding all mystic/spiritual discussion" and formally banish "transpersonal psychology"... "which violates our "preaching" rule and maintains the protocol that only materialism is "scientific."

 

In my dreams. This post will surely be either deleted or my final infraction.

 

Hey... I already know. "Precognitive" too. Eat your little materialistic hearts out. (This said in jest... not that it matters.)

G-bye.

Final serious note: Those actually interested in the science of consciousness and the study of it as a possibly creative force might be interested in checking out both "The Journal of Consciousness Studies" and the best digest of experiments on the power of consciousness "at a distance" that I know of, "The Intention Experiment."

Well I can see the hammerr of authoritarian tyranny coming down with the supreme displeasure of Freeztar.

See you for a reunion in early 2004 if my immanent banning is not absolute and permanent.

michael