why u hate/love the SES

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
Guest

Re: My experiences of SES

Postby Guest » Sat Jun 19, 2004 2:35 am

TB wrote:I am a past member of the SES and recognise most of the views expressed by others here. My feelings about the school are mixed, again similar to others. I have rationalised the how and why as follows. If we set aside the school specific objectives, goodness, badness etc and see them as a social organisation that requires conformity of its members in order to exist, we realise that we fit into many such social groups. From our nuclear family, to the business we work in, schools we attend, religion, nation etc all exact a toll from us as individuals. My conclusion is that in order to work within society, and gain the benefits it offers (or avoid the penalties it imposes) we compromise many individual desires thoughts, feelings etc (many of which are not actually our own, but arise from society).
With this as my starting point I have to say I found the principles of school appealed to me. I found knowledge at a different level than that offered by society outside (politics, religion, business, science etc). However this came at a cost. The school demands an increasing time commitment, but being out of the mainstream it can create rifts around you with family, friends unless you choose to sacrifice much of this. Much of the issue with the school is caused by the differences we have around us in normal society. I liken it to a person who exercises and eats a healthy diet, there is pressure if all around us choose a lazy, unhealthy lifestyle (or vice versa) and it's a challenge to go against the flow.
However I do not like being pushed around, I wear a tie at work and shine my shoes only because they pay me money to do it, but accept I sell my soul in the process.

Someone posted a question on caning at the SES school. Is caning bad? Toss a coin and find out. We are in a time warp of moral relativity. Ask smokers, homosexuals, wifebeaters, kamikazi pilots, samurai, headhunters, society designs our morality based upon politics. Don't expect me to judge right and wrong, its already done.

So, we all choose our own social burden, for some it is religion, armed forces, business, et al, they differ only in detail. Is it better to follow a system that seeks the truth or one that sells illusion? This is a good question indeed, defeating better minds than ours. For me the school offered healthy exercise for my spirit and mind, despite its own people sometimes compromising its principles, mostly because like you and me - they are small people seeking their own ends, however noble they might seem to us.

Even if you 'choose' an alternative to the school, there is no doubt in my mind another social group is moulding you in its own image, different stripes perhaps, and not as obvious if all around you are lemmings.

I chose to 'retire' from the school because I could not reconcile its lifestyle into my other life baggage, despite the value I gained from it. The meditation offered is truly a wonderful tool, as valuable to me as fresh food, air and exercise. That said, you do not not need the SES to get these things but they can add impetus.

If my perspective helped then you have just been brainwashed, if it didn't, you have just been brainwashed. :grab:




Well said TB. But you know much more than you are telling this forum. Somewhere along the line, methinks. you began to suspect that somewhere further 'up the line' all was not as it appeared to be.
I certainly agree with yoour observations regarding 'the fruits' of ones efforts -- you are evidence of that .

ps don't let Mr. Grubb's comments put you off.

[quote error fixed - mike]

aspinal

Postby aspinal » Sat Jun 19, 2004 2:45 am

a different guest wrote:Wombat - when did Mavro cease to be a leader (or whatever they call it) with the Sydney school?

Is it still influenced by him?




Regarding wombats comment : this Mavro person ( not his real name but it does begin with Mavro) is long departed the Sydney SOP but now runs his own 'alternate' school in Sydney and a few other cities in Australia. Since the Police and Press checked into him during the 70's and 80's he has kept a very low profile. Try as one might there is simply no information about him on the internet.
There should be a few more ex Sydney students who might like to come forward and 'share their thoughts' eh ?

TB

Re: My experiences of SES

Postby TB » Sat Jun 19, 2004 1:24 pm

Hallo Tom Grubb, in answer to your question, yes I do make moral judgements, but they are probably about as useful and one-eyed as the next persons. I have pretty much the same morals as many middle class westerners and think war, theft, murder, rape blah blah are all wrong, but these are socially constructed and there have always been contexts at some time in which they were justified. If I had been born to a society of cannibals, I am sure I would have eaten from the same finger bowl without being overly concerned about it being wrong.
My issue with moral judgements is that they get in the way of the facts and once judged, you can forget about the facts. I feel that our social morals are constructed to justify behaviour, and behaviour is driven by a desire to control our destiny. I do not discount the possibility of absolute morality but I do not think I am qualified to call that one. No problem debating it if you want some mental gymnastics. Sorry if you were offended by what seemed flippant or callous remarks about corporal punishment. For the record I support it, 'smacking' children etc in certain contexts seem very effective in my experience. I could put up a time consuming argument to support it, but its probably just that I belong and conform to this social standard. I remind myself as a reformed smoker that it is questionable to consider lethal injections from some who now pollute my air. (kidding)

Another guest response mentioned that I had inklings as to the school's real colors and was being somewhat coy about it. I was actually in the school when the whole 'cult' thing was happening. It got discussed and rationalised in a reasonable way I thought. The entire system and progression of 'philosophy', plato, meditation, music etc is drip fed to students when appropriate, and that is deliberate. I am not really against that either, one could consider it subversive, however every education system in the world does the same. My parents told me that Father Christmas was real, that sex was not something I should consider when just 8, despite me considering myself an expert at that point. They never told me how difficult it was to raise kids, that marriage was not really a fairly tale, quite a number of things were kept from me. Now I am getting old and noone really let me know about that either. In school maths I leant to add before I did geometry, if I had known at the beginning about the theorems I would never have started with the sums. Sorry to be flippant about it all, but the idea of 'not telling all' on the first date does not have to be sinister, in human society some deception is normal.

I am reading the stuff about the St James schooling with great interest and am suprised at the level of discipline and hardship. That said, I attended a Catholic school and a few of the monks were mad, running amuck with the cane and slipping their hands into the boys shorts. Overall they were OK considering their vows of chastity and I think we had an acceptable proportion of casualties. I feel that these are social traits, and have moderated over the past 30 years in western society. While it is true certain organisations attract and harbour cranks better than others, my experience of SES is that they are all pretty much like you and me. Some of them had some megalmania but so have some in my office, local sports club and council.

I read the opening chapter of 'The Secret Cult' by Hogg and Hounan and felt it was a bit sensational. I cannot comment on the specific circumstances and did not attend the UK SES (which I imagine was probably the most intense location) but some of their comments and conclusions are very weak. I think the authors wanted to made sure it was a story that would sell, so they spiced it up a bit. I am only judging based upon the first chapter, and would like to read the whole book, but it does not seem to be in print or on sale anywhere. Any suggestions as to sourcing one?

Antises

Postby Antises » Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:23 pm

Forgive me if I sound patronising, but your last couple of posts, TB, are a load of postmodernist drivel. You frequently assert that an individual's moral judgements mean nothing because they are socially constructed. What a load of rubbish! Some people consider moral judgements regardless of current social conditions and practices, on the basis of what is right and wrong, good and bad, not on what society accepts and rejects. You also feel that moral judgements get in the way of the facts - the (UK) legal system is fundamentally based on moral judgements, through written law and previous judgements. The facts are presented, opinions are made as to whether the facts exhibit a behaviour that is morally acceptable, and a decision is made based on the facts. Please, TB, stop subjecting all of us to your painfully long posts.

Guest

Re: My experiences of SES

Postby Guest » Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:04 am

TB wrote:Hallo Tom Grubb, in answer to your question, yes I do make moral judgements, but they are probably about as useful and one-eyed as the next persons. I have pretty much the same morals as many middle class westerners and think war, theft, murder, rape blah blah are all wrong, but these are socially constructed and there have always been contexts at some time in which they were justified. If I had been born to a society of cannibals, I am sure I would have eaten from the same finger bowl without being overly concerned about it being wrong.
My issue with moral judgements is that they get in the way of the facts and once judged, you can forget about the facts. I feel that our social morals are constructed to justify behaviour, and behaviour is driven by a desire to control our destiny. I do not discount the possibility of absolute morality but I do not think I am qualified to call that one. No problem debating it if you want some mental gymnastics. Sorry if you were offended by what seemed flippant or callous remarks about corporal punishment. For the record I support it, 'smacking' children etc in certain contexts seem very effective in my experience. I could put up a time consuming argument to support it, but its probably just that I belong and conform to this social standard. I remind myself as a reformed smoker that it is questionable to consider lethal injections from some who now pollute my air. (kidding)

Another guest response mentioned that I had inklings as to the school's real colors and was being somewhat coy about it. I was actually in the school when the whole 'cult' thing was happening. It got discussed and rationalised in a reasonable way I thought. The entire system and progression of 'philosophy', plato, meditation, music etc is drip fed to students when appropriate, and that is deliberate. I am not really against that either, one could consider it subversive, however every education system in the world does the same. My parents told me that Father Christmas was real, that sex was not something I should consider when just 8, despite me considering myself an expert at that point. They never told me how difficult it was to raise kids, that marriage was not really a fairly tale, quite a number of things were kept from me. Now I am getting old and noone really let me know about that either. In school maths I leant to add before I did geometry, if I had known at the beginning about the theorems I would never have started with the sums. Sorry to be flippant about it all, but the idea of 'not telling all' on the first date does not have to be sinister, in human society some deception is normal.

I am reading the stuff about the St James schooling with great interest and am suprised at the level of discipline and hardship. That said, I attended a Catholic school and a few of the monks were mad, running amuck with the cane and slipping their hands into the boys shorts. Overall they were OK considering their vows of chastity and I think we had an acceptable proportion of casualties. I feel that these are social traits, and have moderated over the past 30 years in western society. While it is true certain organisations attract and harbour cranks better than others, my experience of SES is that they are all pretty much like you and me. Some of them had some megalmania but so have some in my office, local sports club and council.

I read the opening chapter of 'The Secret Cult' by Hogg and Hounan and felt it was a bit sensational. I cannot comment on the specific circumstances and did not attend the UK SES (which I imagine was probably the most intense location) but some of their comments and conclusions are very weak. I think the authors wanted to made sure it was a story that would sell, so they spiced it up a bit. I am only judging based upon the first chapter, and would like to read the whole book, but it does not seem to be in print or on sale anywhere. Any suggestions as to sourcing one?



Interesting stuff TB. Growing old ... yes 'tis true no one tells you even though the evidence is all around, perhaps it is all too 'obvious' for the young to see . Much like a number of things for which the evidence is everywhere ... but we see it not .
Have you considered how 'dificult' conditions must have been in the 70's for an organisation like the SES to be 'allowed' to diseminate the teachings that they did ?
If not for it, I would have been as blind to what really goes on as most of the media types that report 'The News'. Having said that .. there were and are a lot of very myopic dullards in the SES, standing around 'the signposts' and thinking that they have 'arrived' .. if you get my drift.


[quote error fixed - mike]

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:07 am

Antises wrote:Forgive me if I sound patronising, but your last couple of posts, TB, are a load of postmodernist drivel. You frequently assert that an individual's moral judgements mean nothing because they are socially constructed. What a load of rubbish! Some people consider moral judgements regardless of current social conditions and practices, on the basis of what is right and wrong, good and bad, not on what society accepts and rejects. You also feel that moral judgements get in the way of the facts - the (UK) legal system is fundamentally based on moral judgements, through written law and previous judgements. The facts are presented, opinions are made as to whether the facts exhibit a behaviour that is morally acceptable, and a decision is made based on the facts. Please, TB, stop subjecting all of us to your painfully long posts.


... there are none so blind .. etc. join the club.

TB

Postby TB » Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:41 am

Hi Antises, I can see that someone moved your cheese, maybe even ate it, but I cannot really help you. I suggest you consider to never send a small boy to do a man's job. Rejoin this discussion when you have learnt the basics.

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:55 pm

Hi TB,

Actually, I wasn't offended by your remarks. I was rather intrigued by your comment, "Don't expect me to judge right and wrong, its already done". It made me wonder whether you personally took a moral stance on anything. Thanks for providing me with the answer.

I have been wondering recently whether some of our tormentors at St Vedast sincerely felt that they were doing something morally right when they physically and mentally abused us, especially if, as I suspect, the authority to abuse us came from the god-like Leonardo Da Vinci MacLaren himself. Whilst some of the St Vedast teachers gave every sign of being natural sadists, even psycopaths, there were others who did not fit that description but nonetheless perpetrated abuse.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:04 pm

The above message was mine. I'm afraid I didn't log in. Apologies.

TB

Postby TB » Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:28 pm

Hallo Tom Grubb, in my opinion there would be some of your abusive masters who consciously imagined they were morally right, and acted on this basis and others who simply obeyed the authority of the school, making them less 'responsible'. If not already seen, suggest you look at Stanley Milgram experiments on obedience to authority, it makes interesting reading.
http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Postby adrasteia » Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:07 pm

Thanks for your messages TB, a couple of points came mind.

TB wrote:In school maths I leant to add before I did geometry, if I had known at the beginning about the theorems I would never have started with the sums. Sorry to be flippant about it all, but the idea of 'not telling all' on the first date does not have to be sinister, in human society some deception is normal.


But these are not children any more, these are adults. Should this change anything?
Does something being normal make it right? I think this would be deception on a somewhat large scale!

Thanks, adrasteia.

TB

Postby TB » Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:24 am

Hallo Adrasteia, if I understand you correctly, you are asking if adults should be, or are treated differently to children in terms of social deception. Deception appears to be neutral in terms of race, age and gender. We have some clear examples of how we do it with children. There are also plenty of examples in adult society, an obvious one occurs when we date the opposite sex. Wearing our heart on our sleeves can be risky depending upon circumstances, so being intelligent and concerned for our own welfare, we do not. This makes biological sense from Darwins view.
I would not consider this either to be morally right or wrong, and by calling it normal I mean it is widely prevalent. Deception on a large scale it surely is.

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Postby adrasteia » Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:38 am

Sorry, I wasn't very clear, but yes this was what I mean.
I had focused in my mind on the deception present in teaching through out the stages of life.
It is right that children have a more 'drip-fed' method, so they progress through simple addition to more complicated sums, but they do not choose this, most may not be aware of where the knowledge is leading them, but it is law that they should attend school. Those who are deemed to know what is best for the child decide what teaching should be compulsory. Younger children cannot be trusted to choose what is 'right' for them, although these choices become available as they grow older at GCSE, A Level and University stages and begin to shape their lives for themselves.
This system implies that as an Adult, there should be more understanding of what is right and wrong for the person from themselves, but in the case of Ses and other spiritual groups and most religions there is yet another level of teachers- spiritual teachers. But because the knowledge they teach is, like the algebra, so far beyond the pupil's grasp, the adult student has to be drip-fed as a child again, although it is not the law this time but is through the choice of the pupil.
Is this what you meant?

TB

Postby TB » Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:15 am

Hallo Adrasteia,
That is not exactly my interpretation of how it works. I would say that it is a 'fact' that children are drip-fed, rather than 'right', to make distinction between what 'is' and what 'ought' to be. I would further say that older students in school are given choices limited by the social framework they have been educated into, in earlier childhood. Language is a simple example of this.

As we approach adulthood (Australian law pegs 14 years as being the age at which we can distinguish right from wrong) within the construct of society, we make moral judgements. SES, religions etc. are there to teach and guide adults (and children) on what is required to conform to these systems. Add law, business, government, sport, fashion et al to this list, that define acceptable individual behaviour. They have varying intent, and the degree and method we are required to conform differs. They also evolve according to changes in environment, expedience, pressure groups etc.
I liken 'choice' here, as to what my kids get when I offer them one of the three cereals we have in the pantry.

The subtlest and most telling deception effected by this system is that, despite the above, people are somehow taught to consider themselves free willed individuals.

mei_ei@yahoo.ca

my experience

Postby mei_ei@yahoo.ca » Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:58 am

The school of philosophy has changed my life. It is the most significant thing that has ever came into my life. I have been in it for about 5 years I believe and my mentality, observation ability and the way I view everything has completely changed. They introduced me to philosophy which is the core of my life and my greatest passion right now.

No matter what the 'real' purpose or motivations behind their teachings, they have changed me for the better. Generally, they help people immensely in their life from what I've seen and helped people develop their potential. Sure, there are some sketchy things with the school and some BAD effects of them, but I value the way they've changed me immensely.

I can think deeper, see clearly and reason more effectively because of them. My friend and I have come up with an interesting and working theory of what they're really about, which can be true or not, but relevant nonetheless. I'll share that with you another time.

I thank the school immensely for what the have given me, no matter if they're good/evil or true/decieving.

I am very grateful.


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests