vinniram Wrote:There is no one I would trust more with children than Michael. In fact, I would never trust anyone in this world with my children except my own family, and Michael Jackson.

Taking that a bit far there, don't you think?

Sure the allegation against him were BS... Sure he was just chillin with those children like they were his bestest childhood friends... Sure he was a little weird with them... Sure he made a few inappropriate jokes... gave them a dash of cough syrup and had his way after they passed out... wait that's not how it happened... @_@

All that, by no means, makes him a saint. The fact that you would let a total stranger, yes that what he is to you, sleep with your kids, if he were still alive (still alive... still alive) is more disturbing than the drama surrounding Michael himself.

Worship your idol... but don't sacrifice your first born, man.

99.99% of fans have never met Michael, but we still love him... he's not a "stranger" to us in that sense. we've watched hours and hours of his interviews, footage, music and videos, it gives us a good idea of the type of person he was. that's why we love him. didn't you hear what paris said at the memorial - "I just wanted to say, my daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine"... she wouldn't have said that if she didn't mean it.

vinniram Wrote:didn't you hear what paris said at the memorial - "I just wanted to say, my daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine"... she wouldn't have said that if she didn't mean it.

No. I didn't that. 興味ない. Paris is his daughter right? Googled her. She's 11. I don't think she's old enough to evaluate her experiences with her father in a more objective way. Who knows what she'll be saying 10-20-30 years from now.

Can't help but smile every time I see the words "Micheal Jackson" up here--when he died, I think that typo crossed over into acceptable parlance. Even his family pronounces his name differently now!

kazelee Wrote:

vinniram Wrote:didn't you hear what paris said at the memorial - "I just wanted to say, my daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine"... she wouldn't have said that if she didn't mean it.

No. I didn't that. 興味ない. Paris is his daughter right? Googled her. She's 11. I don't think she's old enough to evaluate her experiences with her father in a more objective way. Who knows what she'll be saying 10-20-30 years from now.

I have an 7 year old cousin whose parents are involved in a bitter custody dispute. The father is nice enough, but the mother is terrible - she has the most awful mood swings, but she buys this 7 year old girl gifts to bribe her into staying with her in Sydney, instead of moving up to Brisbane. She loves the girl in her own way, I'm sure, but she just isn't providing the appropriate mothering needs to that girl.

I asked my cousin what she thinks about her mother, and she said all she wants to do is leave, because she just isn't feeling she's loved.

Now, you say 11 isn't old enough to evaluate one's experiences with their parent/s? Given childhood are those critical formative years, I'd say 11 is the perfect time to honestly ask a child about their parents. My 7 year old cousin gave me an honest answer. That's my experience with the issue.

vinniram Wrote:Now, you say 11 isn't old enough to evaluate one's experiences with their parent/s? Given childhood are those critical formative years, I'd say 11 is the perfect time to honestly ask a child about their parents. My 7 year old cousin gave me an honest answer. That's my experience with the issue.

Unfortunately things aren't always so black and white.

Quote:isn't providing the appropriate mothering needs to that girl.

...is made fairly obvious by attempting to bribe the kid.

It "is" possible to provide the necessities for a child to feel loved while abusing the child in the process. It's called grooming. Google it. Take a look at the wikipedia entry. Read it carefully. Read the last few sentences of the overview a couple times. Think about it for a day or two.

What you're realizing is that no matter how talented or loving he was, there might, just might... be a hint of truth to the labels he's been given. And no responsible parent should ignore that hint... that small itching, nag of a feeling that he just might be...

He was a compulsive liar so it is difficult to believe anything he said. I watched a two hour special on him here on Japanese TV last night. How many times did he deny the number of times he had multiple plastic surgery? I watched him as he claimed over and over that he was the biological father of all his white kids. It was extremely disturbing the way he held the child he called blanket while talking to the cameraman. He dangled his freaken newborn off a balcony! Love his music and dancing but to deny he was a deeply disturbed man is absurd. Even my girlfriend who adores him was shocked and had to admit he was well beyond sane.

I skimmed the first few sentences of what you said kazelee, but didn't read it all. I know that if I said anything trying to support Michael, you would find a way to counter it. It's OK though. You think the worst of him. I love him forever. It's OK.

Love the sinner. Hate the sin

bodhisamaya Wrote:Love the sinner. Hate the sin

I'd like to see people in general take a similar dissociative approach to entertainment.

"Appreciate the music/etc., don't give a rat's arse about the person or persons who made it, nor about other people who obsess about said person or persons, regardless of this obsession's negative or positive intent."

Guess it doesn't have the same pep to it, though.

vinniram Wrote:I skimmed the first few sentences of what you said kazelee, but didn't read it all.

Nice try. I know you read it. Read the damn post, again.

Quote:I know that if I said anything trying to support Michael, you would find a way to counter it. It's OK though. You think the worst of him. I love him forever. It's OK.

Interesting. I've made no mention of my personal feelings toward this individual. The villain in question is not Michael, but your blind idolatry of him. By not even opening up your mind to the possibility... you are saying it's OK. "I don't care about the bad parts, he inspires me," is the attitude you were conveying.

"It's OK"? Yes, it is Ok to have doubt. It is okay to question whether he isn't the man you think he was. It's OK. Now...

nestor Wrote:"Appreciate the music/etc., don't give a rat's arse about the person or persons who made it, nor about other people who obsess about said person or persons, regardless of this obsession's negative or positive intent."

People have short attention spans, so that one wouldn't work.

I did go and read your post. sorry for not doing that earlier, but I felt it would just be baseless attacks. I was mistaken. you have a point, as I haven't made myself clear until now.

I questioned Michael before I became a fan. I didn't become a fan until after the trial. I had questions... I didn't know whether he was guilty or innocent and that bugged me. But, even before the verdict came, I made myself watch videos, interviews, other people's commentaries, trying to gauge whether in my mind I thought he was guilty or innocent. Of course, then the innocent verdict came out. but by that time, I had come to my own conclusion. I refused to follow the media. I chose to think for myself, and the conclusion I came to was that yes Michael loves children, but in a way like a parent loves a child, not in the way the mass media would have me believe.

it's not blind faith. blind faith means never questioning. I was questioning EVERYTHING around the trial and around Michael. If I hadn't questioned, I couldn't possibly have become a fan. only when I felt for myself I had arrived at an answer I was satisfied with, did I become a fan. I had listened to the media for so long, so at first I admit I used to think what everybody else thinks about him... I never looked at things objectively. When I made myself do that, when I listened to the interviews with the jurors after the trial, when I was OBJECTIVE, that's when I came to the conclusion, in my mind, he is innocent, and he is a good person.

Did he molest those children? I don't know. No one ever knows for sure when guilt or innocence is usually determined by who has the more talented lawyer. A man was just released in Florida today after serving 35 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. DNA evidence is now proving that up to 1/3 of those who have been executed in America were most likely innocent but came from poor backgrounds and so were easy to convict.

Is Michael Jackson the biological father to all of his white children as he claims?
Did he only have two plastic surgeries as he also claims?

These questions have nothing to do with evidence of guilt or innocent but do make it obvious most everything he says can't be believed. I think he probably did touch those boys inappropriately perhaps even with non-sexual intent. He was addicted to pain killers so maybe the drugs affected his reasoning ability. He was always making claims of being abused and often victims of abuse continue that cycle or act out in other ways.

kazelee Wrote:

nestor Wrote:"Appreciate the music/etc., don't give a rat's arse about the person or persons who made it, nor about other people who obsess about said person or persons, regardless of this obsession's negative or positive intent."

People have short attention spans, so that one wouldn't work.

They just need time.

[ファブリス]

Who is hurt by the Michael Jackson bashing? Idon't mean to sound like a preacher, just want to share something that I found helpful:

Eckhart Tolle discussing ego with Oprah..

oprah winfrey? I was watching her show the other day where they had a cake-off. I didn't realize you could fit so much on a cake without it collapsing and it's still edible. of course at her size oprah wouldn't have trouble eating a designer cake like that all by herself

[ファブリス]

You definitely didn't watch that video did you... Is there soemthing wrong with her or something wrong with the thing in you that sees something wrong with her?

I sincerely recommend you to challenge yourself to listen to what they are talking about. It's very fitting actually, including when they talk about collective greavance at the end, in regard to the MJ fans.

I've actually been reviewing a particularly nasty pile for the last half hour. it's just when I saw it was Oprah, I didn't watch it, but it reminded me of an episode a little while ago. I was just poking fun at oprah, in much the same way people seem to poke fun at... yeah anyway. I will watch it. My mum's read that book and suggested it, so domo arigatou gozaimashita for the link.

[ファブリス]

Hey vinniram, consider also "The Power of Now". I'm really into it right now. It's his first book. The second one "A New Earth" seems more generic and less practical, it is also covered at length with the full "web class" available on YouTube.

You're very lucky that your mother would even read such a book. If you are young (you wrote "mum").. and you grew up in a decent environment.. the "dysfunction of the mind" as Eckhart puts it may not be apparent enough yet, but the book is definitely worth reading.

I wish I could have come accross such a book in my twenties. I grew up in a family where children should just shut up. I grew up with a huge ego. It seems the mind's only response to suffering is to dig an even wider and deeper hole, and then drown itself (and yourself with it!) in anxiety and depression. Books can not change you, but they can point you in the right direction. Someone told me about a meditation retreat many years ago, and things started to change a lot for me at that point.

I think the web is wonderful.. it can be a great tool for awakening, but also can be a double sided coin. If you are getting too caught up with message board discussions, you could build yourself more ego. But if you're aware of it, that's ok. For example here.. MJ is dead. That IS. No discussion will bring him back, and so the interesting thing is that the discussion at the end really is about you (or whoever is most vehement in the topic), rather than MJ... which is quite funny when you think about it.

I've also been reading The Power of Now recently, coincidentally. Tolle gives some of the most elegant, most profound explanations of mind, ego and time I've ever heard.

Recommending a spirituality book in a Michael Jackson thread

That guy has obviously been trained in Eastern philosophy. He explains it a way Westerners can understand without the baggage that might go along with it being a religious teaching.

I've never really considered the concept of the 'ego' to be useful at all, so if anyone knows any good sources that could change my mind let me know. However, some of the things in the video that Faburisu posted are kind of interesting when looked at when you get through the special sort of language that Eckhart and Oprah are using. For example, the idea that people often are complaining for reasons other than solving disagreements--and certainly that such complaining is not helping--seems to be a very true observation.

Normally I wouldn't look at anything with a name like "A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose." Mostly because, works like 'awakening,' and phrases like 'new earth' and 'life's purpose' are usually used because they have a good emotive feeling rather than because they convey any content. That is, they sound good and give people a fuzzy feeling, but usually things that are presented in that way don't seem to have content that is concrete enough to be useful for me (and usually other people as well).

However, I think I'll watch the rest of the Oprah bits, at least, to give it a chance.

Tzadeck Wrote:I've never really considered the concept of the 'ego' to be useful at all, so if anyone knows any good sources that could change my mind let me know.

Honestly, it took quite a while for my Western brain to really get a good grip on what "ego" or "self" was, personally. Mebbe Bodhisamaya could elaborate? (I sure can't!)

Many of the popular western spiritual teachers such as Tolle have a very accessible approach to Eastern philosophical and spiritual concepts, so if you're anything like me and had been brought up in a typical Judeo-Christian background, I think that'd be a good starting point. Some of my favorite Western teachers include Jack Kornfield, Pema Chodron, Shunryu Suzuki, Shinzen Young and Alan Watts - all of whom I've found quite accessible and enjoyable. Whether or not you'll find what you're looking for in any of them, I have no idea

This is the greatest hijack in the history of RevTK.

It is said that if you can comprehend what the self is, then you are enlightened. I am far from enlightened.
I struggle to understand what self is constantly. It is easy to recognize superficially that the flesh suit most people call self is not the self. Live in it for 70 years or so and then move on (what ever it is that moves on). Still I get angry when someone emotionally or physically injures some aspect of my flesh suit or the reputation of it.
I am usually too lazy to investigate why because I would rather mindlessly pleasure this flesh suit (that is not me) with sex, food, sleep, beer and the pursuit of praise. Why do I put so much effort into something that is in a constant state of decay and can never really be satisfied? One second after orgasm there is dissatisfaction and sometimes regret. If I eat more than a serving of some food I love, I feel uncomfortable and guilty if it was unhealthy. If I drink more than a few beers, I suffer in various ways. No one really cares how great I am so what exactly does praise do for the self?

[ファブリス]

A fish in the water doesn't know what is "water". It doesn't complain because it is wet.

Like the fish who can't "see" water, we can't see ego.