The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic playtime, with
personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce being brought
up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher, Dick James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would be
simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so he had to
recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the songwriting
task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four people,'
and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning exotic
locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was nearby,
only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting levels of
completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about perhaps
needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine version
of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream was an
inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental phrasing
could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965 tune was
ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein out of
necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic playtime, with

personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce being brought
up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher, Dick James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would be

simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so he had

to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the songwriting
task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four people,'

and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning exotic

locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was nearby,
only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting levels of

completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about perhaps
needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine version
of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream was an

inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental phrasing
could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965 tune was
ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein out of

necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is
symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25/04/2022 5:16 pm, Curtis Eagal wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic playtime,

with personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce being
brought up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher, Dick
James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would be

simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so he had

to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the songwriting
task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four people,'

and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning exotic

locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was nearby,
only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting levels of

completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about perhaps
needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine version
of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream was

an inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental
phrasing could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965
tune was ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein out

of necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is

symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.

I think that you think a little too much.

geoff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:49:47 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 25/04/2022 5:16 pm, Curtis Eagal wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic playtime,

with personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce being
brought up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher, Dick
James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would be

simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so he

had to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the
songwriting task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four people,'

and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning

exotic locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was
nearby, only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting levels

of completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about perhaps
needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine version
of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream was

an inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental
phrasing could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965
tune was ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein out

of necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is

symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.

I think that you think a little too much.

geoff

I hope I never aspire to think *less* -
The evidence that I can be correct is evident now in the Ukrainian situation, from a conjecture I posted elsewhere on 11 October 2006 - late January 2022 was figured for the time of a lethal military action amidst a pandemic with supply-chain problems:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/c/ymn92thMWss/m/2o3l_eEqR0QJ

<< Faux à l'étang joint vers le Sagittaire
En son haut AUGE de l'exaltation

Scythe at the pool joined towards Sagittarius
In the highest INCREASE of the exaltation

I noted the emphasis on the concept of "increase" for the location
and correctly interpreted this as around the mid-point of the
constellation, since past this point it would be leaving the sign. I
can conclude it was correct, since I have discovered the likeliest time
for fulfillment: when Saturn reaches the midpoint of Aquarius (the
pool, its symbol being water), it will aspect with the Moon in
Sagittarius - the exact location for the sextile is 15 degrees 3
minutes, and this will happen 28 January 2022. The rest of the verse
predicts the approach of renovation, perhaps after the pestilence,
famine and death by military hand referred to in the third line. >>

The Russian troops were massing at the Ukraine border circa 28 January 2022, but had retreated before, and the US intelligence that an invasion would indeed take place was even doubted by the Ukrainian president; of course that invasion horrifically
occurred about a month later.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:49:47 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 25/04/2022 5:16 pm, Curtis Eagal wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic playtime,

with personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce being
brought up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher, Dick
James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would be

simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so he

had to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the
songwriting task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four people,'

and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning

exotic locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was
nearby, only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting levels

of completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about perhaps
needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine version
of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream was

an inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental
phrasing could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965
tune was ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein out

of necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is

symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.

I think that you think a little too much.

geoff

Most of what I was relaying is printed out in the captions as they speak in the documentary.
It's also from common knowledge available in several online articles - https://www.goldradiouk.com/artists/the-beatles/rooftop-concert-abbey-road-let-it-be-libya-roman-sabratha/

Lennon called The Beatles a Christian band in 1969 during a Canadian interview; in 1971 he told an inquisitive Tom Snyder "All our music is subliminal"; similar quote about making his guitar talk. "We're trying to make Christ's message contemporary" was
another helpful comment. They could not score music, but could whistle for someone who could. At each stage they dropped subtle clues, like being photographed mid-jump in 1963, or talking about washing and cooking circa 1966.

The subliminal essence from the musical hooks are what Lennon said the listener would have to drop their mental barriers to perceive. Starting from the debut stage is easier than jumping into the psychedelic middle without having learned the general
format and communicative tendencies. Every element that is key to a new level of aural comprehension is present from the beginning, like Lennon said later they were "just done up differently."

The part in "Ask Me Why" where the lyric "I can't conceive of any more" is followed by a brief pause filled by three powerful guitar strums suggests to me simply by listening the interjection of the phrase '- Quite Enough!' -' to be finished by the vocal
resuming with "...Misery." That sort of instrumental-vocal substitution-crossover is exactly what Lennon was hinting at, which opens up untold possibilities for cerebral technically capable recording artists.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:35:56 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:49:47 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 25/04/2022 5:16 pm, Curtis Eagal wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic playtime,

with personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce being
brought up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher, Dick
James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would be

simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so he

had to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the
songwriting task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four

people,' and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning

exotic locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was
nearby, only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting levels

of completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about perhaps
needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine version
of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream

was an inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental
phrasing could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965
tune was ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein

out of necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is

symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.

I think that you think a little too much.

geoff

Most of what I was relaying is printed out in the captions as they speak in the documentary.
It's also from common knowledge available in several online articles - https://www.goldradiouk.com/artists/the-beatles/rooftop-concert-abbey-road-let-it-be-libya-roman-sabratha/

Lennon called The Beatles a Christian band in 1969 during a Canadian interview; in 1971 he told an inquisitive Tom Snyder "All our music is subliminal"; similar quote about making his guitar talk. "We're trying to make Christ's message contemporary"

was another helpful comment. They could not score music, but could whistle for someone who could. At each stage they dropped subtle clues, like being photographed mid-jump in 1963, or talking about washing and cooking circa 1966.

The subliminal essence from the musical hooks are what Lennon said the listener would have to drop their mental barriers to perceive. Starting from the debut stage is easier than jumping into the psychedelic middle without having learned the general

format and communicative tendencies. Every element that is key to a new level of aural comprehension is present from the beginning, like Lennon said later they were "just done up differently."

The part in "Ask Me Why" where the lyric "I can't conceive of any more" is followed by a brief pause filled by three powerful guitar strums suggests to me simply by listening the interjection of the phrase '- Quite Enough!' -' to be finished by the

vocal resuming with "...Misery." That sort of instrumental-vocal substitution-crossover is exactly what Lennon was hinting at, which opens up untold possibilities for cerebral technically capable recording artists.

Lennon also said that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain," and "I don't believe in Jesus."

He also fell under the spells of various Christian televangelists. He was all over the map. Nothing he said should be taken as reflecting a firm view -- especially if it was uttered during one of his heavy drug or Yoko-promotion phases.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:16:48 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic playtime,

with personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce being
brought up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher, Dick
James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would be

simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so he had

to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the songwriting
task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four people,'

and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning

exotic locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was
nearby, only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting levels of

completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about perhaps
needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine version
of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream was

an inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental
phrasing could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965
tune was ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein out

of necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is

symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.


What would any of that have to do with the specific song? It's a percussive effect meant to imply Maxwell's hammer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25/04/2022 10:35 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:16:48 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic playtime,

with personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce being
brought up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher, Dick
James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would be

simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so he had

to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the songwriting
task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four people,'

and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning

exotic locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was
nearby, only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting levels of

completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about perhaps
needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine version
of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream was

an inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental
phrasing could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965
tune was ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein out

of necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is

symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.

What would any of that have to do with the specific song? It's a percussive effect meant to imply Maxwell's hammer.

That's what I meant by 'think too much'. Obsessively dwelling on
something trivial and weaving some great meaningful story around it.
Totally in error.

geoff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:40:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:35:56 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:49:47 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 25/04/2022 5:16 pm, Curtis Eagal wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic

playtime, with personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce
being brought up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher,
Dick James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would

be simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so

he had to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the
songwriting task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four

people,' and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning

exotic locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was
nearby, only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting

levels of completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about
perhaps needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine
version of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream

was an inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental
phrasing could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965
tune was ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein

out of necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is

symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.

I think that you think a little too much.

geoff

Most of what I was relaying is printed out in the captions as they speak in the documentary.
It's also from common knowledge available in several online articles - https://www.goldradiouk.com/artists/the-beatles/rooftop-concert-abbey-road-let-it-be-libya-roman-sabratha/

Lennon called The Beatles a Christian band in 1969 during a Canadian interview; in 1971 he told an inquisitive Tom Snyder "All our music is subliminal"; similar quote about making his guitar talk. "We're trying to make Christ's message contemporary"

was another helpful comment. They could not score music, but could whistle for someone who could. At each stage they dropped subtle clues, like being photographed mid-jump in 1963, or talking about washing and cooking circa 1966.

The subliminal essence from the musical hooks are what Lennon said the listener would have to drop their mental barriers to perceive. Starting from the debut stage is easier than jumping into the psychedelic middle without having learned the general

format and communicative tendencies. Every element that is key to a new level of aural comprehension is present from the beginning, like Lennon said later they were "just done up differently."

The part in "Ask Me Why" where the lyric "I can't conceive of any more" is followed by a brief pause filled by three powerful guitar strums suggests to me simply by listening the interjection of the phrase '- Quite Enough!' -' to be finished by the

vocal resuming with "...Misery." That sort of instrumental-vocal substitution-crossover is exactly what Lennon was hinting at, which opens up untold possibilities for cerebral technically capable recording artists.

Lennon also said that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain," and "I don't believe in Jesus."

He also fell under the spells of various Christian televangelists. He was all over the map. Nothing he said should be taken as reflecting a firm view -- especially if it was uttered during one of his heavy drug or Yoko-promotion phases.

The television show The Prisoner had an episode "Hammer Into Anvil" first airing 1 December 1967, The Beatles were fans of that show. They would also know about the anvil's use musically, yet it does not follow they would be ignorant of the dual
religious significance of it. The song is a macabre ditty about a serial killer who deals out Fate with a Hammer, like a wrathful Deity, and also consistent with the Martyrdom concept. The lyrics hardly ever overtly parallel the entire subliminal
content so that it never has to be perceived to fully understand.

The two anvil strikes arrive at the end of an instrumental passage to emphatically accent the final two syllables in a phrase - it depends which tangent you are following to transcribe the full phrasing - for the Christ tangent those two notes correspond
with "HER SON!' All these sorts of things collected together would amount to a pamphlet rather than a book, so I made the decision to have the full disclosures in my book series, where a more complete context could be established with the stories of the
original idea, arrangement approaches during recording, structural musical analysis, and so forth before finally revealing how the hooks function thematically.

In an interview John compared the song "God" to "Girl" from Rubber Soul, the aspect of trusting that earthly pain leads to pleasure in the afterlife, which he saw as a economic-social trick oppressors use with religion; the song was the result of the
final exercise, which was reviewing your latest work objectively. For John that meant watching the film "Let It Be," and he realized no one might ever take away from it what they were trying to get across. He explained the list of things being
denounced was like a game where anything would fit, since in the end there is the practical admission that only those closest to use, like life partners, should be where we place our day-to-day faith. John said of his group, "We believed... Suddenly, we
didn't believe."

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer: the
best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite possessions
were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar anti-
materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

In his 1980 Playboy interview John expressed a desire to fathom the meaning of Christ's parables, and on occasion proclaimed himself "One of Christ's biggest fans." The Beatles made their craft appear effortless, but that doesn't mean no effort went
into it. Harrison said like pebbles make ripples on the surface of water, they knew they had thrown in boulders and were anticipating the eventual consummation of conscious awareness.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:16:48 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic playtime,

with personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce being
brought up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher, Dick
James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would be

simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so he had

to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the songwriting
task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four people,'

and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning

exotic locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was
nearby, only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting levels of

completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about perhaps
needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine version
of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream was

an inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental
phrasing could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965
tune was ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein out

of necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is

symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.

The anvil is a famous symbol of the Greek god Hephaestus.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:03:46 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:10:09 PM UTC-7, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:16:48 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic playtime,

with personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce being
brought up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher, Dick
James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would be

simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so he

had to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the
songwriting task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four

people,' and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning

exotic locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was
nearby, only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting

levels of completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about
perhaps needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine
version of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream

was an inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental
phrasing could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965
tune was ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein

out of necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is

symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.

The anvil is a famous symbol of the Greek god Hephaestus.

Online sources basically concur:

<< "The anvil symbolizes the primordial forging of the universe...In Christian symbolism, the anvil is an attribute of St. Eligius, the patron saint of blacksmiths." >>

*

<< Hephaestus, Greek Hephaistos, in Greek mythology, the god of fire. Originally a deity of Asia Minor and the adjoining islands (in particular Lemnos), Hephaestus had an important place of worship at the Lycian Olympus. His cult reached Athens not

later than about 600 BCE (although it scarcely touched Greece proper) and arrived in Campania not long afterward. His Roman counterpart was Vulcan. >>

*

The "Forge Of God" concept is parallel. Remember the ultimate title used for the project was "Let IT Be," as follow-up from the double album whose white cover suggested pure Light, putting 'Let There Be Light' into regression. While the "Abbey Road"

cover image seems cleverly devised in a minimalist fashion, the White Album had a New Testament format matching "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" with a Pauline Epistle including a verse about 'walking with God' (it also has a shocking vocal trick
referencing a specific story from Christ's Infancy). Before the Creation of Light, God 'hovered over the waters,' with the visible part of the white zebra crosswalk markings looking unlike the solid paved earth of the roadway.

Starting from the first cover, unequivocally set in modern-day architecture, the 'Temple Of God' tangent makes vast temporal regressions. With the shadowy Stygian 'hue of dungeons' for the "With The Beatles" cover image the Medieval Dark Ages was

implied.

Then an allusion to the historically brief appearance of Christ Himself, partially fulfilling Messianic prophecy through His Crucifixion during the Daytime darkness of a Total Solar Eclipse (24 November Year 29) and emergence of Jordan-baptized glowing

souls released from Hades illuminating that Night, as "A Hard Day's Night."

The inference of slavery in the "Beatles For Sale" title would be pre-Christian. These visual-conceptual tangents are not discernible in the music, and seem to summarize various eras objectively in a rapid time-reversal.

The encompassing white snow of the "Help!" cover counters that enslaved concept, implying the Old Testament Hebrew Prophets receiving the providential assistance of Divine Enlightenment.

On the "Rubber Soul" cover the family of Noah landing after the Deluge could be deduced, John as Noah staring into the camera, with his three 'sons' looking off ready to re-populate the re-greening world.

"REVOLVER" includes the nautical fantasy "Yellow Submarine" for experiencing the Deluge itself in Noah's Ark, which someone proposed built by Biblical specifications would spin instead of capsize. The mesmerizing cover art uses depictions of hair

suggesting smoke rising from the barrel of a pistol, which also has a wavy oceanic appearance.

That would make "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" correspond with the pre-Diluvian world, perhaps in this context the bust of Sergeant Pepper Himself satirizes pagan idolatry.

There are no human faces on the "Magical Mystery Tour" cover, suggesting Mankind has not yet been created: also there is a strange vertical arcing version of a rainbow, which should appear after the Flood, when Noah is told it is the sign of divine

covenant (a related message can be heard as the Maori finale from "Hello Goodbye").

Then the Bright Light of Creation, and further back - so the 'Divine Forge' symbolism of the Anvil is compatible.

Also the Egyptian Scarab Beetle Kefra mythology reflects the life cycle (including afterlife) in forward mode.

The orgasmic ascent of "Twist And Shout" segues into the dark-lit gestation period; the hard work insinuation implies the Labor of birth.

The double-time waltz "Baby's In Black" was based on a children's rhyme, and the sleeve visuals utilized a subliminal Humpty Dumpty.

The cover of "Help!" against the encompassing whiteness then implies the shock of puberty.

The accidental slipping of a projection surface distorted the "Rubber Soul" image diagonally, so the band then seems to be a group of adult parents, with one looking down knowingly and the others preoccupied above our sphere of influence.

That's where the Death Trip starts, between the 'life flashing before your eyes' REVOLVER front collage, and the dark studio photo on the back - the latter suggestion is that the soul has 'rolled out' of the body into a blackout. Ancient Egyptians

inscribed a gold scarab beetle with a phrase meaning 'To Revolve' to replace hearts from mummified corpses.

In "Paperback Writer" the added reverb introduces a new tangent by changing the primary twist with an extra syllable; and breaking the "Frere Jacques" harmonic backing down into tonal approximates provides another surprise.

My question is, since this veered into a discussion about how a song could play into the idea of martyrdom, should I provide the real answer? I can't think of anything more important, but the transcription along that tangent would likely be disturbing.

I should've checked before adding as postscript, but the feast day for blacksmith patron Saint Eligius is December First -

Same day in 1967 that the "Hammer Into Anvil" Prisoner episode was first broadcast!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:10:09 PM UTC-7, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:16:48 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic playtime,

with personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce being
brought up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher, Dick
James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would be

simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so he

had to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the
songwriting task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four people,

' and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning

exotic locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was
nearby, only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting levels

of completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about perhaps
needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine version
of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a dream

was an inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted instrumental
phrasing could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns. That 1965
tune was ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian Epstein

out of necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a film with
waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is

symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.

The anvil is a famous symbol of the Greek god Hephaestus.

Online sources basically concur:

<< "The anvil symbolizes the primordial forging of the universe...In Christian symbolism, the anvil is an attribute of St. Eligius, the patron saint of blacksmiths." >>

*

<< Hephaestus, Greek Hephaistos, in Greek mythology, the god of fire. Originally a deity of Asia Minor and the adjoining islands (in particular Lemnos), Hephaestus had an important place of worship at the Lycian Olympus. His cult reached Athens not later
than about 600 BCE (although it scarcely touched Greece proper) and arrived in Campania not long afterward. His Roman counterpart was Vulcan. >>

*

The "Forge Of God" concept is parallel. Remember the ultimate title used for the project was "Let IT Be," as follow-up from the double album whose white cover suggested pure Light, putting 'Let There Be Light' into regression. While the "Abbey Road"
cover image seems cleverly devised in a minimalist fashion, the White Album had a New Testament format matching "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" with a Pauline Epistle including a verse about 'walking with God' (it also has a shocking vocal trick
referencing a specific story from Christ's Infancy). Before the Creation of Light, God 'hovered over the waters,' with the visible part of the white zebra crosswalk markings looking unlike the solid paved earth of the roadway.

Starting from the first cover, unequivocally set in modern-day architecture, the 'Temple Of God' tangent makes vast temporal regressions. With the shadowy Stygian 'hue of dungeons' for the "With The Beatles" cover image the Medieval Dark Ages was
implied.

Then an allusion to the historically brief appearance of Christ Himself, partially fulfilling Messianic prophecy through His Crucifixion during the Daytime darkness of a Total Solar Eclipse (24 November Year 29) and emergence of Jordan-baptized glowing
souls released from Hades illuminating that Night, as "A Hard Day's Night."

The inference of slavery in the "Beatles For Sale" title would be pre-Christian. These visual-conceptual tangents are not discernible in the music, and seem to summarize various eras objectively in a rapid time-reversal.

The encompassing white snow of the "Help!" cover counters that enslaved concept, implying the Old Testament Hebrew Prophets receiving the providential assistance of Divine Enlightenment.

On the "Rubber Soul" cover the family of Noah landing after the Deluge could be deduced, John as Noah staring into the camera, with his three 'sons' looking off ready to re-populate the re-greening world.

"REVOLVER" includes the nautical fantasy "Yellow Submarine" for experiencing the Deluge itself in Noah's Ark, which someone proposed built by Biblical specifications would spin instead of capsize. The mesmerizing cover art uses depictions of hair
suggesting smoke rising from the barrel of a pistol, which also has a wavy oceanic appearance.

That would make "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" correspond with the pre-Diluvian world, perhaps in this context the bust of Sergeant Pepper Himself satirizes pagan idolatry.

There are no human faces on the "Magical Mystery Tour" cover, suggesting Mankind has not yet been created: also there is a strange vertical arcing version of a rainbow, which should appear after the Flood, when Noah is told it is the sign of divine
covenant (a related message can be heard as the Maori finale from "Hello Goodbye").

Then the Bright Light of Creation, and further back - so the 'Divine Forge' symbolism of the Anvil is compatible.

Also the Egyptian Scarab Beetle Kefra mythology reflects the life cycle (including afterlife) in forward mode.

The orgasmic ascent of "Twist And Shout" segues into the dark-lit gestation period; the hard work insinuation implies the Labor of birth.

The double-time waltz "Baby's In Black" was based on a children's rhyme, and the sleeve visuals utilized a subliminal Humpty Dumpty.

The cover of "Help!" against the encompassing whiteness then implies the shock of puberty.

The accidental slipping of a projection surface distorted the "Rubber Soul" image diagonally, so the band then seems to be a group of adult parents, with one looking down knowingly and the others preoccupied above our sphere of influence.

That's where the Death Trip starts, between the 'life flashing before your eyes' REVOLVER front collage, and the dark studio photo on the back - the latter suggestion is that the soul has 'rolled out' of the body into a blackout. Ancient Egyptians
inscribed a gold scarab beetle with a phrase meaning 'To Revolve' to replace hearts from mummified corpses.

In "Paperback Writer" the added reverb introduces a new tangent by changing the primary twist with an extra syllable; and breaking the "Frere Jacques" harmonic backing down into tonal approximates provides another surprise.

My question is, since this veered into a discussion about how a song could play into the idea of martyrdom, should I provide the real answer? I can't think of anything more important, but the transcription along that tangent would likely be disturbing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer: the

best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite possessions
were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar anti-
materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings up the
point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer: the

best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite possessions
were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar anti-
materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings up the

point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being
interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making the most provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy talking about the poor
without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but
righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal conclusion
that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset to allow the oppressor minimal resistance. The
idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery. Pie in the sky when
you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John would point
upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he thought somebody was acting badly; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he said he WAS God, receiving the reply he has not meant he "A God or THE God" but had a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil or divine
through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of extremes was summed up in the Christ versus Hitler contrast.

Religion is a means to an end, and the complexity suggested by Christ's parables suggest a long and winding narrow path. Harrison spoke about the necessity of 'God perception' - with that, an organized religion with a vicar as intermediary would be
obsolete. In Revelation the ultimate Paradise has no Temple, illuminated by the divine beings instead. So "No Religion" could be what getting religion right looks like. I don't recall ever hearing a discussion about a single world religion, sounds
Apocalyptic. I would also like the title of that book about prayer.

Interest in the occult is not incompatible with Christianity; John was working on some I Ching artwork that was not completed. And there was an interest in isolated printings of particular Bible verses.

The issue of possessions is tricky, John must have considered his own material requirements when changing the lyric live to,

"I wonder if WE can"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer: the

best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite possessions
were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar anti-
materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings up the

point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being
interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but righteously
anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal conclusion
that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor minimal
resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery. Pie in
the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John would point
upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational philosophies
that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil or righteous
through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

Religion should be a means to an end, and the aggregate thematic complexity of Christ's parables suggests a long and winding narrow path. Harrison spoke about the necessity of 'God perception' - with that, an organized religion with a vicar as
intermediary would be obsolete. In Revelation the ultimate Paradise has no Temple, illuminated by the divine beings Themselves instead. So "No Religion" could be what getting religion right looks like. I don't recall ever hearing a discussion about a
single world religion, sounds ominously Apocalyptic.

I would also like the title of that book about prayer.

Interest in the occult is not incompatible with Christianity; John was working on some I Ching artwork that was not completed. And there was an interest in isolated printings of particular Bible verses.

The issue of possessions is nuanced, John must have considered his own material requirements when changing the lyric in a live performance to,

"I wonder if WE can"

In the documentary there were song catalog acquisitions by Northern Songs which Starr was observing; when Harrison arrives Ringo asks whether there's interest in what George now owns a quarter of one percent share - 'possessing something' can be an
abstract notion.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:10:23 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:03:46 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:10:09 PM UTC-7, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:16:48 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:52:40 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

The "Get Back" documentary focusing on the January 1969 sessions culminating in The Beatles' unannounced rooftop concert brought out a lot of issues that were not evident in the earlier "Let It Be" film. The creativity seems like chaotic

playtime, with personalities clashing during decision-making in the process, and some reluctant admission that ego was intruding. While Ringo Starr reassures too much shouldn't be read into their being 'grumpy,' there is an exchange about (group) Divorce
being brought up at a recent meeting as 'getting close' or impending - John Lennon wonders what would become of "The Children," apparently facetiously referring to their songs, to which Paul McCartney shrugs, offering the name of their music publisher,
Dick James.

The band started the New Year with ambitious plans that involved avoiding extreme production with extensive overdubs for a live performance mode, eventually assisted by Billy Preston recruited for keyboard; some audio-visual presentation would

be simultaneously done, televised or as a theatrical film. The director feels they need a contrived visual spectacle beyond the band itself, and the impressive Roman ruin of the Sabratha amphitheater in northern Africa is proposed, an idea that develops
into cruising there with an English-speaking audience - George Harrison considered that lunacy, perhaps thinking about more than the expenses.

George Martin discusses how even though John and Paul no longer collaborate closely they remain a songwriting team, while George comprised his own team of one. Harrison would say Lennon often forgot work that had been done on his own songs, so

he had to recall for him, which made him feel involved; conversely, McCartney would always offer great help, but George complained there would be '59 songs' of Paul's to get through before one of his tunes was even given a listen. Relinquishing the
songwriting task to Lennon-McCartney in the early days was difficult to overcome once Harrison started seriously trying, getting the tip from Lennon that ideally an original composition should be completed all at once.

The lunchtime departure of Harrison, from the project and the group, arrives suddenly with no explosive outburst.

George leaves suggesting they replace him, obviously feeling devalued, and marginal to the collective effort; initial attempts to have him return fail. Candid audio between John and Paul reveals they never thought of The Beatles as 'the four

people,' and they were trying to resolve the stylistic-aesthetic decision concerns at the heart of George's grievances.

There was a renegade objective, with McCartney suggesting musically storming Parliament, a step too far: anticipating some sort of beating, he was reminded of their unsavory experiences in Manila - and Memphis. The filmmakers wanting a stunning

exotic locale clashed with group members' desire to stay home, honoring those closest to them. Ultimately the decision to do the rooftop concert was a deliberate attempt to be charged with disturbing the peace - Starr wondered if a better rooftop was
nearby, only to be told that would compound the potential charges with trespassing.

Some very early Lennon-McCartney material was used to fill out the song quota of about fourteen. Lennon reporting progress described the tunes like a tailor preparing various suits: some 'ready to wear,' others 'made to measure' (reflecting

levels of completion); John also spoke of getting to 'The Riff Stage,' which probably involved devising prominent musical bits, after the song was otherwise finished, with determined style, melody, lyrics, structure, harmonies, etc. Harrison spoke about
perhaps needing to rework the tune after the riffs or hooks were included. At certain points communication by a sort of musical shorthand was used to convey what rhythms or chords or precise bits or other elements to alter, allowing the viewer a genuine
version of the bogus banter about improving Ringo's drumming performance after "If I Fell" in their debut Lester film.

Starr explains the Twickenham studio was too spacious for their project, preferring the cozier feeling of the Apple location.

When the song "Let It Be" is undertaken, McCartney exclaims, "The true meaning of Christmas," which would involve a certain Pregnancy coming to full term about two thousand years ago; Paul's own "Mother Mary" offering the title advice in a

dream was an inspiration. The slow, somewhat broken rhythm of a prominent recurrent musical passage troubled Paul, who described it as 'plodding' - but John reassures him that it was 'mournful,' and therefore effectively appropriate. The stilted
instrumental phrasing could have been taken as intuitively foreshadowing the Passion suffering they had breezed through earlier in their song catalog, when they gave a tune the sardonic working title of "That's A Nice Hat," inferring The Crown of Thorns.
That 1965 tune was ultimately titled "It's Only Love," corresponding with the Station of The Cross where Jesus falls for the third time - the riff there sounds like,

'Fell -
For The Third
Time'

John did not feel this was one of his best efforts, calling it a nicely packaged empty box. So having reached the Nativity circa 1969, the emergence of an elegiac tone was fitting. McCartney had taken the role of their late manager Brian

Epstein out of necessity, realizing it was inappropriate with his creative colleagues. John being closely linked to Yoko during sessions probably mattered less to George than his being treated as superfluous to the ongoing project. Harrison had seen a
film with waltzing on television, and composed "I Me Mine" in that genre; Lennon performed on slide guitar for George's original "For You Blue."

Even the retrospectively historic selection of the rooftop 'venue' for a phantom concert appears to have an advisory precedent in a quote from Jesus:

"What I tell you in the dark,
Speak in the daylight;
What is whispered in your ear,
Proclaim from the rooftop"

[Matthew 10:27]

A subtle religious inference that visually asserts itself in the studio is the lingering presence of an anvil, which was struck with a hammer by Mal Evans for an audio effect on the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer": the heavy blacksmith tool is

symbolically associated with the Creator forging the Universe, and also broadly and specifically with Christian Martyrdom.

The anvil is a famous symbol of the Greek god Hephaestus.

Online sources basically concur:

<< "The anvil symbolizes the primordial forging of the universe...In Christian symbolism, the anvil is an attribute of St. Eligius, the patron saint of blacksmiths." >>

*

<< Hephaestus, Greek Hephaistos, in Greek mythology, the god of fire. Originally a deity of Asia Minor and the adjoining islands (in particular Lemnos), Hephaestus had an important place of worship at the Lycian Olympus. His cult reached Athens not

later than about 600 BCE (although it scarcely touched Greece proper) and arrived in Campania not long afterward. His Roman counterpart was Vulcan. >>

*

The "Forge Of God" concept is parallel. Remember the ultimate title used for the project was "Let IT Be," as follow-up from the double album whose white cover suggested pure Light, putting 'Let There Be Light' into regression. While the "Abbey Road"

cover image seems cleverly devised in a minimalist fashion, the White Album had a New Testament format matching "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" with a Pauline Epistle including a verse about 'walking with God' (it also has a shocking vocal trick
referencing a specific story from Christ's Infancy). Before the Creation of Light, God 'hovered over the waters,' with the visible part of the white zebra crosswalk markings looking unlike the solid paved earth of the roadway.

Starting from the first cover, unequivocally set in modern-day architecture, the 'Temple Of God' tangent makes vast temporal regressions. With the shadowy Stygian 'hue of dungeons' for the "With The Beatles" cover image the Medieval Dark Ages was

implied.

Then an allusion to the historically brief appearance of Christ Himself, partially fulfilling Messianic prophecy through His Crucifixion during the Daytime darkness of a Total Solar Eclipse (24 November Year 29) and emergence of Jordan-baptized

glowing souls released from Hades illuminating that Night, as "A Hard Day's Night."

The inference of slavery in the "Beatles For Sale" title would be pre-Christian. These visual-conceptual tangents are not discernible in the music, and seem to summarize various eras objectively in a rapid time-reversal.

The encompassing white snow of the "Help!" cover counters that enslaved concept, implying the Old Testament Hebrew Prophets receiving the providential assistance of Divine Enlightenment.

On the "Rubber Soul" cover the family of Noah landing after the Deluge could be deduced, John as Noah staring into the camera, with his three 'sons' looking off ready to re-populate the re-greening world.

"REVOLVER" includes the nautical fantasy "Yellow Submarine" for experiencing the Deluge itself in Noah's Ark, which someone proposed built by Biblical specifications would spin instead of capsize. The mesmerizing cover art uses depictions of hair

suggesting smoke rising from the barrel of a pistol, which also has a wavy oceanic appearance.

That would make "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" correspond with the pre-Diluvian world, perhaps in this context the bust of Sergeant Pepper Himself satirizes pagan idolatry.

There are no human faces on the "Magical Mystery Tour" cover, suggesting Mankind has not yet been created: also there is a strange vertical arcing version of a rainbow, which should appear after the Flood, when Noah is told it is the sign of divine

covenant (a related message can be heard as the Maori finale from "Hello Goodbye").

Then the Bright Light of Creation, and further back - so the 'Divine Forge' symbolism of the Anvil is compatible.

Also the Egyptian Scarab Beetle Kefra mythology reflects the life cycle (including afterlife) in forward mode.

The orgasmic ascent of "Twist And Shout" segues into the dark-lit gestation period; the hard work insinuation implies the Labor of birth.

The double-time waltz "Baby's In Black" was based on a children's rhyme, and the sleeve visuals utilized a subliminal Humpty Dumpty.

The cover of "Help!" against the encompassing whiteness then implies the shock of puberty.

The accidental slipping of a projection surface distorted the "Rubber Soul" image diagonally, so the band then seems to be a group of adult parents, with one looking down knowingly and the others preoccupied above our sphere of influence.

That's where the Death Trip starts, between the 'life flashing before your eyes' REVOLVER front collage, and the dark studio photo on the back - the latter suggestion is that the soul has 'rolled out' of the body into a blackout. Ancient Egyptians

inscribed a gold scarab beetle with a phrase meaning 'To Revolve' to replace hearts from mummified corpses.

In "Paperback Writer" the added reverb introduces a new tangent by changing the primary twist with an extra syllable; and breaking the "Frere Jacques" harmonic backing down into tonal approximates provides another surprise.

My question is, since this veered into a discussion about how a song could play into the idea of martyrdom, should I provide the real answer? I can't think of anything more important, but the transcription along that tangent would likely be

disturbing.

I should've checked before adding as postscript, but the feast day for blacksmith patron Saint Eligius is December First -

Same day in 1967 that the "Hammer Into Anvil" Prisoner episode was first broadcast!

That episode of "The Prisoner" has a plot set in motion with dialogue involving the anvil and hammer pairing.

The hero secret agent knew too much to retire, abducted to a placid resort Village and designated Number 6. He has witnessed a death he blames on the current, frequently-replaced, warden-interrogator Number 2, and seeks retribution. Number 2 quotes
Goethe,

'You must be hammer or anvil'

Number 6 then asks,

"And you see me as the anvil?"

The question hints at an Orwellian line that is unspoken -

['It is always the anvil that breaks the hammer,
Never the other way about']

In the conceit of his power Number 2 gloats,

"Precisely.
I am going to
hammer

you."

Scheduling this initial broadcast on the feast day for the patron of blacksmiths by random coincidence is unlikely.

Number 6 carries out his mission of vengeance by enacting his spy communication tricks involving unknowing prominent denizens of the Village, so Number 2 becomes subdued by paranoia about a supposed internal operation focused on himself. It was the
winning role to be The Anvil, the object so heavy as to be thought immovable, absorbing the strikes of the over-stressed Hammer - so the allegory with Christian Martyrdom, enduring persecution through selfless Faith, seems close.

The clear lyrical reference to being possibly Crucified, in "The Ballad Of John And Yoko," gets treated with a brief instrumental coda that has a sort of Mariachi flavor, where I hear (in excerpt)

'...a Christian martyr,
Instead of being
A Roman...'

Also, "Carry That Weight" in reverse provides garbled vocalization of a complete statement about martyrdom that had to be devised during composition.

There is a discernible message about martyrdom in "Maxwell's Silver Hammer," as a tangent for the synthesizer part - but this is strange, since it appears too esoteric to be conscious, despite the curious choice of the Anvil as an instrument. Remember,
a celesta was used on "Baby It's You," which represents Heaven, chiming brightly to match Harrison's heavy-sounding guitar solo (in twin-track mono); there were many significant arrangement decisions like that, from African drum to exotic Latin
percussion. There were even two sets of pigs brought in separately for the mono and stereo overdub sessions for "Piggies."

Revelation puts Heaven's Martyrs into white robes at breaking of the Fifth Seal; then a vast multitude appears in white robes, completing the total number. The text offers a scenario where a tattoo (worshipping a human monster) will be required to
transact any business, and whoever will not comply will be executed; awareness that eternal damnation would result provokes a large proportion to choose death, thereby attaining salvation. The Higher Powers wait until the dust settles, the wicked
turning on each other after the righteous - then only the defiant righteous ones are awoken for a thousand years of peace.

The whooping done by Paul near the end sounds like,

'One More Woe!'

Then the synthesizer implies what cannot be easily known, and speaks to an over-layered agenda -

'WHEN You Are -
FREE From Error,
Re-MAINS To Be Known:
Will You
Sur-
Ren-
Der

YOUR
LIFE?!'

An alternate Marian tangent is believable as deliberate, but seems to be unconsciously 'carrying' this sound-parallel tangent somehow.

"The miracle today is
Communication"
--JL

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer:

the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings up

the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal conclusion

that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor minimal
resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery. Pie in
the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John would

point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

Religion should be a means to an end, and the aggregate thematic complexity of Christ's parables suggests a long and winding narrow path. Harrison spoke about the necessity of 'God perception' - with that, an organized religion with a vicar as

intermediary would be obsolete. In Revelation the ultimate Paradise has no Temple, illuminated by the divine beings Themselves instead. So "No Religion" could be what getting religion right looks like. I don't recall ever hearing a discussion about a
single world religion, sounds ominously Apocalyptic.

I would also like the title of that book about prayer.

Interest in the occult is not incompatible with Christianity; John was working on some I Ching artwork that was not completed. And there was an interest in isolated printings of particular Bible verses.

The issue of possessions is nuanced, John must have considered his own material requirements when changing the lyric in a live performance to,

"I wonder if WE can"

Did he ever really aspire to a possession-free life? I doubt it. Yoko -- a conspicuous consumer -- certainly didn't. Lennon admitted in one of his last interviews that his radical politics in the early 70s were phony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer:

the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings up

the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John would

point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer:

the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings up

the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John would

point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism. Lennon compared the negative reaction to their agnosticism in America to the reaction in Australia over their not being sports fans.

At the time evangelists were picketing Beatle concerts with signs about "Beatle Worship"; young people who were crippled would be given front row seats like it was a faith healing show.

The counterculture odyssey of the 'Sixties was not about knowing who you were and sticking to it, rather it was a discovery of oneself as part of a greater Over-Ego consciousness, so views on religion, which has dogmatic and theological aspects, can
change through experiences.

The Harrison who sarcastically called Lennon the band's 'official religious spokesman' in 1964 would four years later be discussing in his solo interview the importance of perceiving God for oneself.

John was very clear the denouncement of God as 'a concept measured by pain' was about the theme from "Girl," that religion teaches to suffer pain for later pleasure, and reflexively those suffering will reach out for God's help. When you hear John
thoughtfully talking about his sense of a Higher Power, and the nature of theosophical teachings such as Heaven being within, the argument he was being capriciously provocative on serious spiritual issues falls apart.

It is more likely the agnostic projection was dubious, since they were two choirboys, one initiate seeking to confirm his faith in the real world, and another who lived role of Little Drummer Boy. The religious inferences in the music were there from
the beginning, but in 'irreverent' forms that could not be touted as a testament of devotion. The working title of "And Your Bird Can Sing" was "You Don't Get Me," applying simultaneously to Cynthia for her gift of a mechanized caged singing bird, and
the fans who could not hear his musical intentions towards subliminal communication, which could bring awareness of the Seven Ancient Wonders tangent thrown in lyrically.

"We tell the truth, but only an eight of it," was a McCartney quote. The lesson is to trust your ears, and filter through that auditory experience which remarks are genuinely useful. I knew when an interviewer asked John to explain where the three "
Yeahs"s came from in "She Loves You" it backed him into a corner - he couldn't give the secret away simply because someone asked, so he muttered about not remembering. Paul's father had asked why not use proper English and have three "Yes"es instead -
and the reply was that Jim was not getting it. They had another struggle with George Martin with the added sixth harmony, where he objected over the 'Andrews Sisters' sound. An engineer looking at the lyrics thought it would be awful, then felt
enthused at the performance. By the time they figured out a critic calling it 'banal' was not a compliment, the critic was having to backtrack about what he 'really' meant. The songs are not simply lyrics set to a melody once fully arranged, there is a
vocal-instrumental interplay that is unexpected.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer:

the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings

up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John would

point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer:

the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings up

the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John would

point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon
courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:21:14 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief, but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

The full text is available online, it's Jean Shepherd's interview for Playboy; my commentary version delves into key points hinted by the actual content, separating from the high-energy banter for media consumption. They were resuming a national tour

with two shows in Exeter, and it took place around 11 pm in their Torquay hotel room. The sense is that a tape ran as a rambling conversation developed, and it all got printed verbatim.

Anyone can now hear the pro-religion single minute from John Lennon's interview with David Wigg (10:07 to 11:08 in the link below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0Y4ul32U8

For those who do not want to be bothered listening to this rare, intriguing interview, here is brief transcription --

DW: "John, on one broadcast in France, you said that you were God. Were you serious about that? Do you really FEEL you are God?"

JL: "We're all God. Christ said The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, and that's what it means. And the Indians say that, and the Zen people say that: It's a basic thing of religion - We're All God. I'm not A god, or THE God - NOT THE God! - But we're

all God, and we're all potentially divine, and potentially evil. We all have everything within us, and The Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, AND within us. And if you look hard enough, you'll see it."

DW: "Do you then believe in life after death?"

JL: "I do. Without any doubt I believe in it."

DW: "Have you had any special experiences that make you believe so convincingly?"

JL: "In meditation, on drugs, on diets, I've been aware of a Soul, and been aware of The Power."

*

Even the infamously controversial Maureen Cleave interview involved discussion of a book about Christ's Disciples, "The Passover Plot."

That's interesting, but -- I should have been more specific -- I was actually asking about your statement that McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief, but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party, or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

The full text is available online, it's Jean Shepherd's interview for Playboy; my commentary version delves into key points hinted by the actual content, separating from the high-energy banter for media consumption. They were resuming a national tour
with two shows in Exeter, and it took place around 11 pm in their Torquay hotel room. The sense is that a tape ran as a rambling conversation developed, and it all got printed verbatim.

Anyone can now hear the pro-religion single minute from John Lennon's interview with David Wigg (10:07 to 11:08 in the link below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0Y4ul32U8

For those who do not want to be bothered listening to this rare, intriguing interview, here is brief transcription --

DW: "John, on one broadcast in France, you said that you were God. Were you serious about that? Do you really FEEL you are God?"

JL: "We're all God. Christ said The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, and that's what it means. And the Indians say that, and the Zen people say that: It's a basic thing of religion - We're All God. I'm not A god, or THE God - NOT THE God! - But we're
all God, and we're all potentially divine, and potentially evil. We all have everything within us, and The Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, AND within us. And if you look hard enough, you'll see it."

DW: "Do you then believe in life after death?"

JL: "I do. Without any doubt I believe in it."

DW: "Have you had any special experiences that make you believe so convincingly?"

JL: "In meditation, on drugs, on diets, I've been aware of a Soul, and been aware of The Power."

*

Even the infamously controversial Maureen Cleave interview involved discussion of a book about Christ's Disciples, "The Passover Plot."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 7:00:38 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:21:14 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ -

but righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

The full text is available online, it's Jean Shepherd's interview for Playboy; my commentary version delves into key points hinted by the actual content, separating from the high-energy banter for media consumption. They were resuming a national tour

with two shows in Exeter, and it took place around 11 pm in their Torquay hotel room. The sense is that a tape ran as a rambling conversation developed, and it all got printed verbatim.

Anyone can now hear the pro-religion single minute from John Lennon's interview with David Wigg (10:07 to 11:08 in the link below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0Y4ul32U8

For those who do not want to be bothered listening to this rare, intriguing interview, here is brief transcription --

DW: "John, on one broadcast in France, you said that you were God. Were you serious about that? Do you really FEEL you are God?"

JL: "We're all God. Christ said The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, and that's what it means. And the Indians say that, and the Zen people say that: It's a basic thing of religion - We're All God. I'm not A god, or THE God - NOT THE God! - But we're

all God, and we're all potentially divine, and potentially evil. We all have everything within us, and The Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, AND within us. And if you look hard enough, you'll see it."

DW: "Do you then believe in life after death?"

JL: "I do. Without any doubt I believe in it."

DW: "Have you had any special experiences that make you believe so convincingly?"

JL: "In meditation, on drugs, on diets, I've been aware of a Soul, and been aware of The Power."

*

Even the infamously controversial Maureen Cleave interview involved discussion of a book about Christ's Disciples, "The Passover Plot."

That's interesting, but -- I should have been more specific -- I was actually asking about your statement that McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism."

A quote from Paul McCartney, probably early 29 October 1964 (after midnight):

"In America, they're fanatical about God. I know somebody over there who said he was an atheist. The papers nearly refused to print it because it was such shocking news that somebody could actually be an atheist... yeah... and admit it."

Then JL made the comparison with Australia and not being sports fans. There might be more in the full text, but basically McCartney thought it was outrageous that such a self-declaration would be censored. As I said the conversation rambled.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 2:50:42 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 7:00:38 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:21:14 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ -

but righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own

personal conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the
oppressor minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering
in slavery. Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood,

John would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

The full text is available online, it's Jean Shepherd's interview for Playboy; my commentary version delves into key points hinted by the actual content, separating from the high-energy banter for media consumption. They were resuming a national

tour with two shows in Exeter, and it took place around 11 pm in their Torquay hotel room. The sense is that a tape ran as a rambling conversation developed, and it all got printed verbatim.

Anyone can now hear the pro-religion single minute from John Lennon's interview with David Wigg (10:07 to 11:08 in the link below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0Y4ul32U8

For those who do not want to be bothered listening to this rare, intriguing interview, here is brief transcription --

DW: "John, on one broadcast in France, you said that you were God. Were you serious about that? Do you really FEEL you are God?"

JL: "We're all God. Christ said The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, and that's what it means. And the Indians say that, and the Zen people say that: It's a basic thing of religion - We're All God. I'm not A god, or THE God - NOT THE God! - But we'

re all God, and we're all potentially divine, and potentially evil. We all have everything within us, and The Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, AND within us. And if you look hard enough, you'll see it."

DW: "Do you then believe in life after death?"

JL: "I do. Without any doubt I believe in it."

DW: "Have you had any special experiences that make you believe so convincingly?"

JL: "In meditation, on drugs, on diets, I've been aware of a Soul, and been aware of The Power."

*

Even the infamously controversial Maureen Cleave interview involved discussion of a book about Christ's Disciples, "The Passover Plot."

That's interesting, but -- I should have been more specific -- I was actually asking about your statement that McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism."

A quote from Paul McCartney, probably early 29 October 1964 (after midnight):

"In America, they're fanatical about God. I know somebody over there who said he was an atheist. The papers nearly refused to print it because it was such shocking news that somebody could actually be an atheist... yeah... and admit it."

Then JL made the comparison with Australia and not being sports fans. There might be more in the full text, but basically McCartney thought it was outrageous that such a self-declaration would be censored. As I said the conversation rambled.

Thanks for the quote. Kudos to McCartney for saying that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <fa036881-29f7-47df-bb0b-13f103b66f5cn@googlegroups.com>,
Norbert K <norbertkosky69@gmail.com> wrote:

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of
Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Must have been too busy to catch Carl Sagan's Cosmos series, lol.
Particularly the second episode which goes into evolution through
natural selection. Eleven of the thirteen episodes had aired before he
was assassinated.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer:

the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings up

the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John would

point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon

courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)



Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along
those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock
the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 1:12:22 PM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 2:50:42 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 7:00:38 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:21:14 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our

Father" prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's
favorite possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a
similar anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult.

Which brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group

is being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ -

but righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own

personal conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the
oppressor minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering
in slavery. Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood,

John would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

The full text is available online, it's Jean Shepherd's interview for Playboy; my commentary version delves into key points hinted by the actual content, separating from the high-energy banter for media consumption. They were resuming a national

tour with two shows in Exeter, and it took place around 11 pm in their Torquay hotel room. The sense is that a tape ran as a rambling conversation developed, and it all got printed verbatim.

Anyone can now hear the pro-religion single minute from John Lennon's interview with David Wigg (10:07 to 11:08 in the link below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0Y4ul32U8

For those who do not want to be bothered listening to this rare, intriguing interview, here is brief transcription --

DW: "John, on one broadcast in France, you said that you were God. Were you serious about that? Do you really FEEL you are God?"

JL: "We're all God. Christ said The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, and that's what it means. And the Indians say that, and the Zen people say that: It's a basic thing of religion - We're All God. I'm not A god, or THE God - NOT THE God! - But

we're all God, and we're all potentially divine, and potentially evil. We all have everything within us, and The Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, AND within us. And if you look hard enough, you'll see it."

DW: "Do you then believe in life after death?"

JL: "I do. Without any doubt I believe in it."

DW: "Have you had any special experiences that make you believe so convincingly?"

JL: "In meditation, on drugs, on diets, I've been aware of a Soul, and been aware of The Power."

*

Even the infamously controversial Maureen Cleave interview involved discussion of a book about Christ's Disciples, "The Passover Plot."

That's interesting, but -- I should have been more specific -- I was actually asking about your statement that McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism."

A quote from Paul McCartney, probably early 29 October 1964 (after midnight):

"In America, they're fanatical about God. I know somebody over there who said he was an atheist. The papers nearly refused to print it because it was such shocking news that somebody could actually be an atheist... yeah... and admit it."

Then JL made the comparison with Australia and not being sports fans. There might be more in the full text, but basically McCartney thought it was outrageous that such a self-declaration would be censored. As I said the conversation rambled.

Thanks for the quote. Kudos to McCartney for saying that.

You're welcome. It was published in the February 1965 issue of Playboy. Jean Shepherd had a New York radio program, and traveled to half a dozen towns with them on their UK tour - his introduction to the article included a poetically descriptive
impression of their routine akin to Poe:

"...wild, ravening multitudes, hundreds of policemen, mad rushes through the night in a black Austin Princess to a carefully guarded inn or chalet for a few fitful hours of sleep.
And then the cycle started all over again"...

"...a gang of convicts executing a well-rehearsed and perfectly synchronized prison break"...

Shepherd wrote the embedding was like being the "terrified hostage" of "four hunted fugitives"; as he observed their makeshift domesticity, "somewhere off beyond the walls of the theatre came the faint, eerie wailing of their worshippers, like the sea or
the wind."

So while they projected agnosticism like it had been a pre-arranged stance (they were not church-goers, Donovan with the daily visiting of the temple within would get a reference later), Shepherd had already decided from witnessing the hysteria that
extreme language was appropriate.

"They were mythical beings, inspiring a fanaticism bordering on religious ecstasy among millions all over the world...

I began to feel that they were the catalyst of a sudden world madness" that was independent of the group itself, and had to arrive then -

"If The Beatles had never existed,
We would have had to invent them."

The feeling had been reinforced in the short time he shared their "vast cloud of fantasy," through which they "managed somehow to remain remarkably human." --

"Night after night, phalanxes of journalists would stand grinning, groveling, obsequious, jotting down The Beatles' every word.
In city after city the local mayor, countess, duke, earl and prelate would be led in, bowing and scraping, to bask for a few fleeting moments in their ineffable aura.

They don't give interviews;
They grant audiences."

I only presumed Harrison was being sarcastic about Lennon as official religious spokesman (in the book 'prophetic'), since just before that John appended a statement with a declaration that he was speaking for the entire group, not just himself (
regarding "more agnostic than atheistic"). Then Paul added, "We all feel roughly the same," as there were no objections to unanimity on the subject.

Lennon had lost his Uncle George, who gave him his first harmonica, and access to an impressive library in his childhood. Then Paul lost his mother Mary, praying that God would bring her back, then resorting to playing the guitar she had bought him.
Then Paul gave guitar tips after watching John perform. When John's mother Julia was finally able to re-enter John's life in his late teens to help guide and support his band (after assisting his purchase of a guitar when Aunt Mimi would not), she was
killed by a drunk driver - John tried a seance to contact her. Ringo had a series of adverse health incidents in his childhood. Harrison was skeptical of institutional authority figures, choosing to engage in a self-Confirmation. The promise of
Christianity being real would not have been apparent to any of them, based on some life experiences.

Harrison later reflected on that period as looking for a Sign, then it years later ultimately struck him that

"The Whole Thing Is A Sign"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 2:29:12 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer:

the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings

up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John would

point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party, >> or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon

courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along
those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock
the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

I think JL was too sophisticated to seriously promote Creationism. If you take the phrase 'born-again pagan' at face value it's like the idea of the Renaissance, a rebirth of Western culture through emulation of artwork unearthed from antiquity.
Christians await some sort of rebirth, and that occurring outside of the Church would make it pagan by definition. Usually people are deceived by the packaging, and John used this to his advantage, changing his approach (the packaging) , while the '
product' inside remained the same.

Religious beliefs and institutions foster submission to pain and resorting to false hope, that's a song basis. We could make Earth into Heaven if we lived the moral essence of religion rather than practice its dogma, that's another. Those didn't emerge
from the same circumstances, but that does not make one the witness against the other, they are both genuine for their respective times.

The genius of Lennon is in how he used sound to process what Christian society professes to revere into a captivating format, so his group was monitoring the unprecedented feedback, while they were picking up on various trends to infuse their productions.
It was known at the outset the enterprise could only be protracted to a finite series of stages, so it was never his belief that mattered - it was a test of our Faith collectively. Once the subliminal becomes conscious it frequently is a sound-
dramatization of the Christ story, gospel facts over which there is no possible debate.

The basis for "Baby's In Black" was not only a children's rhyme: the colors black and blue in the lyrics obviously suggest bruising. The guitar riff ends with a deep note that approximates the word 'Bruise'; the hidden subtext is the passage in Isaiah
where the Messiah is foretold as One who would heal through His bruise - and the variations of the riff become alternated in the instrumental middle section with a unique few bars tonally suggesting,

'...According to Isai-ah,
A He-brew
Pro-phet...'

The two instrumental breaks in the slow ballad "If I Fell" progress from a stilted "Cho-sen Few' to the final ascent implying,

'I Need A
Cho-sen
FEW'

In the film "A Hard Day's Night" John pretends Ringo's drumming could be improved, offering nonsense advice, with Paul offering a ridiculously fast example on bass guitar, whose heavy rhythm conveys,

'EVEN THOUGH
THE MANY
ARE CALLED!'

It is like a mismatched flamenco style, a tonal hidden message for posterity that only further restates what Jesus prophesied.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:29:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer:

the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings

up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John would

point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party, >> or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon

courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along
those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock
the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

I wish I could agree with you. However, if one looks at Lennon's existence at that time, there is no escaping the fact that he was confused. He was giving control over Double Fantasy to Ono -- who was by her own admission guided by pychics and
astrologers (and who was conducting not one but two extramarital affairs at the time). Lennon's Playboy interview if full of paranoia and delusion -- for example Lennon's claim that McCartney had "subconsciously sabotaged" Lennon's best work. Lennon's
best retort to people who thought he was being manipulated by Ono was "Fuck you brother and sister." Lennon had recently emerged from a phase of following televangelist Pat Robertson. And then if you listen to the audio of the Playboy interview, there
is real anger in his voice towards this idea (evolution) he had no understanding of.

John wasn't thinking straight.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 29/04/2022 11:26 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:29:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father" prayer:

the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which brings

up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John would

point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party, >>>> or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon

courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along
those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock
the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

I wish I could agree with you. However, if one looks at Lennon's existence at that time, there is no escaping the fact that he was confused. He was giving control over Double Fantasy to Ono -- who was by her own admission guided by pychics and

astrologers (and who was conducting not one but two extramarital affairs at the time). Lennon's Playboy interview if full of paranoia and delusion -- for example Lennon's claim that McCartney had "subconsciously sabotaged" Lennon's best work. Lennon's
best retort to people who thought he was being manipulated by Ono was "Fuck you brother and sister." Lennon had recently emerged from a phase of following televangelist Pat Robertson. And then if you listen to the audio of the Playboy interview, there
is real anger in his voice towards this idea (evolution) he had no understanding of.

John wasn't thinking straight.

Certainly. But his stock response to any question about anything from
anybody was anything that would shock or be controversial - whether he
actually believed it or not. Not only during that phase, but pretty much
any time.

geoff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 9:09:08 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 29/04/2022 11:26 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:29:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief, >>>> but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party, >>>> or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with >>>> some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon

courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along
those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock
the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

I wish I could agree with you. However, if one looks at Lennon's existence at that time, there is no escaping the fact that he was confused. He was giving control over Double Fantasy to Ono -- who was by her own admission guided by pychics and

astrologers (and who was conducting not one but two extramarital affairs at the time). Lennon's Playboy interview if full of paranoia and delusion -- for example Lennon's claim that McCartney had "subconsciously sabotaged" Lennon's best work. Lennon's
best retort to people who thought he was being manipulated by Ono was "Fuck you brother and sister." Lennon had recently emerged from a phase of following televangelist Pat Robertson. And then if you listen to the audio of the Playboy interview, there is
real anger in his voice towards this idea (evolution) he had no understanding of.

John wasn't thinking straight.

Certainly. But his stock response to any question about anything from anybody was anything that would shock or be controversial - whether he actually believed it or not. Not only during that phase, but pretty much
any time.

geoff

He always liked to provoke, that's true.

I still think John had a lot more sense in his pre-LSD, pre-Yoko, pre-heroin-and-methadone existence.

It would have been interesting if John were talking to someone who had a basic education (which includes biology) and who wasn't awestruck by wealth & fame -- somebody who could challenge John's loopier assertions. John needed a cohort who could
challenge him -- not Yoko with her superstitions or Mintz with his sycophantism.

One of the Fox News idiots once asked Richard Dawkins why monkeys weren't transforming into people, and Dawkins was outraged. "That question is spectacularly stupid! You might as well as why people aren't turning into monkeys!"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 30/04/2022 11:25 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 9:09:08 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 29/04/2022 11:26 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:29:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief, >>>>>> but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party, >>>>>> or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with >>>>>> some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon

courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along
those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock >>>> the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

I wish I could agree with you. However, if one looks at Lennon's existence at that time, there is no escaping the fact that he was confused. He was giving control over Double Fantasy to Ono -- who was by her own admission guided by pychics and

astrologers (and who was conducting not one but two extramarital affairs at the time). Lennon's Playboy interview if full of paranoia and delusion -- for example Lennon's claim that McCartney had "subconsciously sabotaged" Lennon's best work. Lennon's
best retort to people who thought he was being manipulated by Ono was "Fuck you brother and sister." Lennon had recently emerged from a phase of following televangelist Pat Robertson. And then if you listen to the audio of the Playboy interview, there is
real anger in his voice towards this idea (evolution) he had no understanding of.

John wasn't thinking straight.

Certainly. But his stock response to any question about anything from
anybody was anything that would shock or be controversial - whether he
actually believed it or not. Not only during that phase, but pretty much
any time.

geoff

He always liked to provoke, that's true.

I still think John had a lot more sense in his pre-LSD, pre-Yoko, pre-heroin-and-methadone existence.

It would have been interesting if John were talking to someone who had a basic education (which includes biology) and who wasn't awestruck by wealth & fame -- somebody who could challenge John's loopier assertions. John needed a cohort who could

challenge him -- not Yoko with her superstitions or Mintz with his sycophantism.

One of the Fox News idiots once asked Richard Dawkins why monkeys weren't transforming into people, and Dawkins was outraged. "That question is spectacularly stupid! You might as well as why people aren't turning into monkeys!"

John's comment re monkeys-humans would certainly have been a joke.
Trump's equivalent would not have been.

geoff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 8:42:55 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 30/04/2022 11:25 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 9:09:08 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 29/04/2022 11:26 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:29:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC. >>>>>>>
Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief, >>>>>> but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with >>>>>> some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon

courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along >>>> those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock >>>> the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

I wish I could agree with you. However, if one looks at Lennon's existence at that time, there is no escaping the fact that he was confused. He was giving control over Double Fantasy to Ono -- who was by her own admission guided by pychics and

astrologers (and who was conducting not one but two extramarital affairs at the time). Lennon's Playboy interview if full of paranoia and delusion -- for example Lennon's claim that McCartney had "subconsciously sabotaged" Lennon's best work. Lennon's
best retort to people who thought he was being manipulated by Ono was "Fuck you brother and sister." Lennon had recently emerged from a phase of following televangelist Pat Robertson. And then if you listen to the audio of the Playboy interview, there is
real anger in his voice towards this idea (evolution) he had no understanding of.

John wasn't thinking straight.

Certainly. But his stock response to any question about anything from
anybody was anything that would shock or be controversial - whether he
actually believed it or not. Not only during that phase, but pretty much >> any time.

geoff

He always liked to provoke, that's true.

I still think John had a lot more sense in his pre-LSD, pre-Yoko, pre-heroin-and-methadone existence.

It would have been interesting if John were talking to someone who had a basic education (which includes biology) and who wasn't awestruck by wealth & fame -- somebody who could challenge John's loopier assertions. John needed a cohort who could

challenge him -- not Yoko with her superstitions or Mintz with his sycophantism.

One of the Fox News idiots once asked Richard Dawkins why monkeys weren't transforming into people, and Dawkins was outraged. "That question is spectacularly stupid! You might as well as why people aren't turning into monkeys!"

John's comment re monkeys-humans would certainly have been a joke.
Trump's equivalent would not have been.

geoff

Even if John's comment was serious, it would have been a foible on his part. *Every single utterance Trump makes* is moronic, conspiratorial and intended to aggrandize his repulsive self.

I live in a part of the country where the public school systems aren't any good. A lot of people embrace Trump as their role model and devote their lives to false bragging and paranoid delusions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:21:14 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief, but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

The full text is available online, it's Jean Shepherd's interview for Playboy; my commentary version delves into key points hinted by the actual content, separating from the high-energy banter for media consumption. They were resuming a national tour

with two shows in Exeter, and it took place around 11 pm in their Torquay hotel room. The sense is that a tape ran as a rambling conversation developed, and it all got printed verbatim.

Anyone can now hear the pro-religion single minute from John Lennon's interview with David Wigg (10:07 to 11:08 in the link below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0Y4ul32U8

For those who do not want to be bothered listening to this rare, intriguing interview, here is brief transcription --

DW: "John, on one broadcast in France, you said that you were God. Were you serious about that? Do you really FEEL you are God?"

JL: "We're all God. Christ said The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, and that's what it means. And the Indians say that, and the Zen people say that: It's a basic thing of religion - We're All God. I'm not A god, or THE God - NOT THE God! - But we're

all God, and we're all potentially divine, and potentially evil. We all have everything within us, and The Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, AND within us. And if you look hard enough, you'll see it."

DW: "Do you then believe in life after death?"

JL: "I do. Without any doubt I believe in it."

DW: "Have you had any special experiences that make you believe so convincingly?"

JL: "In meditation, on drugs, on diets, I've been aware of a Soul, and been aware of The Power."

*

Even the infamously controversial Maureen Cleave interview involved discussion of a book about Christ's Disciples, "The Passover Plot."

I honestly have no idea what it means to say "We're all God." I don't consider myself godlike. Are bad guys also God according to John?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 10:12:27 AM UTC-4, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:21:14 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ -

but righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

The full text is available online, it's Jean Shepherd's interview for Playboy; my commentary version delves into key points hinted by the actual content, separating from the high-energy banter for media consumption. They were resuming a national tour

with two shows in Exeter, and it took place around 11 pm in their Torquay hotel room. The sense is that a tape ran as a rambling conversation developed, and it all got printed verbatim.

Anyone can now hear the pro-religion single minute from John Lennon's interview with David Wigg (10:07 to 11:08 in the link below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0Y4ul32U8

For those who do not want to be bothered listening to this rare, intriguing interview, here is brief transcription --

DW: "John, on one broadcast in France, you said that you were God. Were you serious about that? Do you really FEEL you are God?"

JL: "We're all God. Christ said The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, and that's what it means. And the Indians say that, and the Zen people say that: It's a basic thing of religion - We're All God. I'm not A god, or THE God - NOT THE God! - But we're

all God, and we're all potentially divine, and potentially evil. We all have everything within us, and The Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, AND within us. And if you look hard enough, you'll see it."

DW: "Do you then believe in life after death?"

JL: "I do. Without any doubt I believe in it."

DW: "Have you had any special experiences that make you believe so convincingly?"

JL: "In meditation, on drugs, on diets, I've been aware of a Soul, and been aware of The Power."

*

Even the infamously controversial Maureen Cleave interview involved discussion of a book about Christ's Disciples, "The Passover Plot."

I honestly have no idea what it means to say "We're all God." I don't consider myself godlike. Are bad guys also God according to John?

Are bad guys also God according to John?

Well that was his quote, " We're all God, may Mark David Chapman strike me dead, baby!!!"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:12:27 AM UTC-7, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:21:14 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ -

but righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

The full text is available online, it's Jean Shepherd's interview for Playboy; my commentary version delves into key points hinted by the actual content, separating from the high-energy banter for media consumption. They were resuming a national tour

with two shows in Exeter, and it took place around 11 pm in their Torquay hotel room. The sense is that a tape ran as a rambling conversation developed, and it all got printed verbatim.

Anyone can now hear the pro-religion single minute from John Lennon's interview with David Wigg (10:07 to 11:08 in the link below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0Y4ul32U8

For those who do not want to be bothered listening to this rare, intriguing interview, here is brief transcription --

DW: "John, on one broadcast in France, you said that you were God. Were you serious about that? Do you really FEEL you are God?"

JL: "We're all God. Christ said The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, and that's what it means. And the Indians say that, and the Zen people say that: It's a basic thing of religion - We're All God. I'm not A god, or THE God - NOT THE God! - But we're

all God, and we're all potentially divine, and potentially evil. We all have everything within us, and The Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, AND within us. And if you look hard enough, you'll see it."

DW: "Do you then believe in life after death?"

JL: "I do. Without any doubt I believe in it."

DW: "Have you had any special experiences that make you believe so convincingly?"

JL: "In meditation, on drugs, on diets, I've been aware of a Soul, and been aware of The Power."

*

Even the infamously controversial Maureen Cleave interview involved discussion of a book about Christ's Disciples, "The Passover Plot."

I honestly have no idea what it means to say "We're all God." I don't consider myself godlike. Are bad guys also God according to John?

If God created everything, then what material is it ALL made from? Having a fragment of the Godhead's divinity through existence itself is not the same as BEING The Godhead, it is a simple distinction. I doubt many evil figures throughout history ever
thought themselves so - there is always a justification, rationalizing whatever is done as improvements. Evil people simply exercise free will in ways that do not please God, to eventually incur a negative judgment.

So bearing a fragment of divinity carries responsibility that one's lifetime(s) might not manifest as righteous acts.

Any religious statement will be controversial until the soul separation (Reaping) events make the esoteric explicit - but of course then it will be too late to repent and convert.

Remember that JL from 1964 was saying The Beatles were not show business, it was a task that once performed would be finished, there could be no gimmicks or tricks to keep things going (despite what people thought), and that the project should be
completed in about five years (i.e., circa 1969). In 1980 he quoted the Bible that there is nothing new under the sun, so an existing story as subtext source was being insinuated.

"If you want to use The Beatles or John and Yoko, people are expecting us to do something FOR them - that's not what's gonna happen: because THEY'RE the ones that didn't understand ANY message that came before anyway, and they're the ones that will
FOLLOW Hitler, or follow the Reverend Moon, or whatever. FOLLOWING is not what it's about."

More to your issue: "I think the idea of leadership is that old Judao-Christian idea of the separateness of God - FROM us, as being OUTSIDE of us - the Other. We ARE The Other: there is only One. So therefore, people kind of expect more from us than
they expect from themselves... We take responsibility for the WHOLE THING, because we're ALL responsible for the whole thing."

A reunion of his former band suggested the crowd would be "expecting God to perform."

The rooftop concert controlled the elements of their actual concerts: they could not be shouted down, their personas and movements were not a distraction from the music, and the excuse the fans already had the records since the material was new.

Canonical texts attributed to Henoch include a dream involving animals that forecast the entire course of human history, from Cain killing Abel to the Apocalyptic period. It has correct chronology and scenarios about the ascension of Elijah, Christ and
His disciples, Constantine's three sons, etc. leading into the Nazi Holocaust: the next passage could be the first instance of Isaiah 6, regarding an inability to properly process audio-visual material, which Jesus reiterated. The story has one of the
eyes-open sheep group being killed, then someone represented as ram also opens his eyes and sprouts a horn of Faith, which many try to break. Ultimately an Abyss opens in the physical and astral dimensions simultaneously, into which the 'blind sheep'
are thrust with their unrighteous leaders, along with the demons who were actually guiding them.

The open eyes signify awareness of the subliminal aspects, to which the blind sheep remain oblivious.

The old tunes brought out for 1969 had some musical communication that was too fast and unfamiliar to expect conscious comprehension by the people in the street. The opening of "Dig A Pony" just seems like a rapid rambling guitar passage that repeats -
but without giving away the startling whole message, the first portion sounds like,

'Jesus was a Leader -
THE Apostle Leader -
But without...'

The next five transcribed words completing that musically hidden remark is essentially dismissive of those thinking declaring themselves a follower is all that was required.

George Harrison in "Something" with the line, "You know I believe, and how," was announcing his self-confirmation was complete - certainly enough had occurred to reinforce his faith. Yet with John's "God" we have the contrasting, cynical view, actually
a 'Crisis of Faith," which takes into account the public reaction in a more practical way - yes, there was a big reaction, but not the one that was anticipated, of clarity with conceptual esotericism. John knew that although his band was intellectual,
that was not their appeal.

John proverbially described how The Beatles were in the crow's nest or at the masthead, but we are all in the same boat.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 4:27:02 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:29:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is being

interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us believe
in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions of the
poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief, >> but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party, >> or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon

courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock
the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

I wish I could agree with you. However, if one looks at Lennon's existence at that time, there is no escaping the fact that he was confused. He was giving control over Double Fantasy to Ono -- who was by her own admission guided by pychics and

astrologers (and who was conducting not one but two extramarital affairs at the time). Lennon's Playboy interview if full of paranoia and delusion -- for example Lennon's claim that McCartney had "subconsciously sabotaged" Lennon's best work. Lennon's
best retort to people who thought he was being manipulated by Ono was "Fuck you brother and sister." Lennon had recently emerged from a phase of following televangelist Pat Robertson. And then if you listen to the audio of the Playboy interview, there is
real anger in his voice towards this idea (evolution) he had no understanding of.

John wasn't thinking straight.

I did hear the interview, and I think your tendency is to presume when JL spoke with intensity it was more like insanity, without even addressing his actual words and the ideas they reflect, which could explain the emotion. In religious texts evolution
has to be inferred from the 'Days of Creation' being figurative and protracted.

However I noted when Yoko drifted in herself, she said something very strange about her husband's former band:

"They were like mediums.
They weren't conscious of all they were saying,
But it was coming through them."

This implies John had told her about something meant to be heard one way that inadvertently had a parallel audio transcription manifest, perhaps several instances. When an interviewer asked John if he was upset about people reading things into his work
that were not there he replied,

"It IS there.
It's like abstract art, really."

In 1967 Paul McCartney told David Frost,

"Everything has a message -
But you can't just pick out one little thing and say,
'Is THAT their message?'
Everything we do is never intended to have a great deep message -
But it HAS."

It was PM who made a distinction about the passage of time affecting perception of JL's controversial Cleave interview.

"Was it a mistake?
I don't know.
In the SHORT term, yes.
Maybe not in the LONG term."

Harrison thought Christians feeling they had a franchise on Jesus could be false representatives, indoctrinating him from an early age; but the view in India was to withhold belief from ANYTHING unless you have direct perception. So George embraced the
notion of discovering esoteric truth for himself through books and mystics.

The messages and sequencing from the second side of the "A Hard Day's Night" album demonstrate that Lennon was acutely aware of the intricacies of Mary Magdalene's encounter with the Risen Christ at the tomb, where when she attempted to touch Him, Jesus
basically responded, "You Can't Do That"! John in the middle plays guitar in the style of Wilson Pickett, subliminally elaborating that Ascension to the Father was required before He could be physically touched. And there is the vocal line, "If they'd
seen you talking that way they'd laugh in my face," that transmutes the ending into "...they'd laugh at my Faith."

The vocalists in some tunes have lyrics that allow for role-playing, sometimes as inanimate objects - the next stage in my book series covers the "Help!" phase, and "Another Girl" seems to be from the point of view of The Cross itself, temporarily
carried by Simon of Cyrene, yet with a destiny linked to the Lord. Cyrene is known for ruins very similar to those used for the song scene in the Bahamas portion of the film.

Lennon was extremely lucid regarding his group's collective accomplishments.

"With The Beatles, the records are the point,
NOT The Beatles as individuals.
You don't need the package,
Just as you don't need the Christian package or the Marxist package to get the message.
People always got the image I was an anti-Christ or anti-religion.
I'm NOT.
I'm a MOST religious fellow.
I was brought up a Christian and I only NOW understand SOME of the things that Christ was saying in those parables...
The people who are hung up on The Beatles and the 'Sixties dream MISSED the whole point when The Beatles and the 'Sixties dream BECAME the point."

The best evidence that Paul McCartney wants people to reach that enlightened level is the subliminal content of "Old Siam Sir" from the "Back To The Egg" (the last for Wings). The manic opening suggests a repetition of,

'Broke up, Broke up!'

As that is going a single note intrudes, implying,

'...But -'

Then the drums seem to finish that thought -

'BUT NOT -
SETTLED!'

Then a vaguely Oriental theme chimes in, yet the tonal melody suggests,

'When The Beatles Are Consummated,
They'll Be Known As
"A Band Subliminal"'

This follows the vocal line melody and repeats frequently.
A powerful guitar riff quasi-vocalizes,

'REAP What's Sown By "The Legend"!'

This repeats until undergoing a variation -

'REAP What's Sown By The -
Sown By "The Myth"!'

The drum sequence also has a variation in the middle when the opening bit repeats, to imply instead,

'BUT NOT -
CON-SUMMATED!'

The mood cools in a few quietly played guitar chords, suggesting,

'One Step Away...'

And the guitar flourish afterwards seems to append,

'...From Consummating'

This appears deliberate, a belief that the "long term" enlightened perspective would emerge eventually, because The Beatles' collection of songs already efficiently planted something to be discerned later.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:44:56 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 4:27:02 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:29:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief, >> but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with >> some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon

courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

I wish I could agree with you. However, if one looks at Lennon's existence at that time, there is no escaping the fact that he was confused. He was giving control over Double Fantasy to Ono -- who was by her own admission guided by pychics and

astrologers (and who was conducting not one but two extramarital affairs at the time). Lennon's Playboy interview if full of paranoia and delusion -- for example Lennon's claim that McCartney had "subconsciously sabotaged" Lennon's best work. Lennon's
best retort to people who thought he was being manipulated by Ono was "Fuck you brother and sister." Lennon had recently emerged from a phase of following televangelist Pat Robertson. And then if you listen to the audio of the Playboy interview, there is
real anger in his voice towards this idea (evolution) he had no understanding of.

John wasn't thinking straight.

I did hear the interview, and I think your tendency is to presume when JL spoke with intensity it was more like insanity, without even addressing his actual words and the ideas they reflect, which could explain the emotion. In religious texts evolution

has to be inferred from the 'Days of Creation' being figurative and protracted.

However I noted when Yoko drifted in herself, she said something very strange about her husband's former band:

"They were like mediums.
They weren't conscious of all they were saying,
But it was coming through them."

This implies John had told her about something meant to be heard one way that inadvertently had a parallel audio transcription manifest, perhaps several instances. When an interviewer asked John if he was upset about people reading things into his work

that were not there he replied,

"It IS there.
It's like abstract art, really."

In 1967 Paul McCartney told David Frost,

"Everything has a message -
But you can't just pick out one little thing and say,
'Is THAT their message?'
Everything we do is never intended to have a great deep message -
But it HAS."

It was PM who made a distinction about the passage of time affecting perception of JL's controversial Cleave interview.

"Was it a mistake?
I don't know.
In the SHORT term, yes.
Maybe not in the LONG term."

Harrison thought Christians feeling they had a franchise on Jesus could be false representatives, indoctrinating him from an early age; but the view in India was to withhold belief from ANYTHING unless you have direct perception. So George embraced the

notion of discovering esoteric truth for himself through books and mystics.

The messages and sequencing from the second side of the "A Hard Day's Night" album demonstrate that Lennon was acutely aware of the intricacies of Mary Magdalene's encounter with the Risen Christ at the tomb, where when she attempted to touch Him,

Jesus basically responded, "You Can't Do That"! John in the middle plays guitar in the style of Wilson Pickett, subliminally elaborating that Ascension to the Father was required before He could be physically touched. And there is the vocal line, "If
they'd seen you talking that way they'd laugh in my face," that transmutes the ending into "...they'd laugh at my Faith."

The vocalists in some tunes have lyrics that allow for role-playing, sometimes as inanimate objects - the next stage in my book series covers the "Help!" phase, and "Another Girl" seems to be from the point of view of The Cross itself, temporarily

carried by Simon of Cyrene, yet with a destiny linked to the Lord. Cyrene is known for ruins very similar to those used for the song scene in the Bahamas portion of the film.

Lennon was extremely lucid regarding his group's collective accomplishments.

"With The Beatles, the records are the point,
NOT The Beatles as individuals.
You don't need the package,
Just as you don't need the Christian package or the Marxist package to get the message.
People always got the image I was an anti-Christ or anti-religion.
I'm NOT.
I'm a MOST religious fellow.
I was brought up a Christian and I only NOW understand SOME of the things that Christ was saying in those parables...
The people who are hung up on The Beatles and the 'Sixties dream MISSED the whole point when The Beatles and the 'Sixties dream BECAME the point."

The best evidence that Paul McCartney wants people to reach that enlightened level is the subliminal content of "Old Siam Sir" from the "Back To The Egg" (the last for Wings). The manic opening suggests a repetition of,

'Broke up, Broke up!'

As that is going a single note intrudes, implying,

'...But -'

Then the drums seem to finish that thought -

'BUT NOT -
SETTLED!'

Then a vaguely Oriental theme chimes in, yet the tonal melody suggests,

'When The Beatles Are Consummated,
They'll Be Known As
"A Band Subliminal"'

This follows the vocal line melody and repeats frequently.
A powerful guitar riff quasi-vocalizes,

'REAP What's Sown By "The Legend"!'

This repeats until undergoing a variation -

'REAP What's Sown By The -
Sown By "The Myth"!'

The drum sequence also has a variation in the middle when the opening bit repeats, to imply instead,

'BUT NOT -
CON-SUMMATED!'

The mood cools in a few quietly played guitar chords, suggesting,

'One Step Away...'

And the guitar flourish afterwards seems to append,

'...From Consummating'

This appears deliberate, a belief that the "long term" enlightened perspective would emerge eventually, because The Beatles' collection of songs already efficiently planted something to be discerned later.

Is it fair to say George was a mystic?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:44:56 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 4:27:02 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:29:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ - but

righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief, >> but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with >> some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was Lennon

courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

I wish I could agree with you. However, if one looks at Lennon's existence at that time, there is no escaping the fact that he was confused. He was giving control over Double Fantasy to Ono -- who was by her own admission guided by pychics and

astrologers (and who was conducting not one but two extramarital affairs at the time). Lennon's Playboy interview if full of paranoia and delusion -- for example Lennon's claim that McCartney had "subconsciously sabotaged" Lennon's best work. Lennon's
best retort to people who thought he was being manipulated by Ono was "Fuck you brother and sister." Lennon had recently emerged from a phase of following televangelist Pat Robertson. And then if you listen to the audio of the Playboy interview, there is
real anger in his voice towards this idea (evolution) he had no understanding of.

John wasn't thinking straight.

I did hear the interview, and I think your tendency is to presume when JL spoke with intensity it was more like insanity, without even addressing his actual words and the ideas they reflect, which could explain the emotion. In religious texts evolution

has to be inferred from the 'Days of Creation' being figurative and protracted.

Not insanity per se, but ignorance. Darwin didn't say that monkeys "turned into" men or even that men evolved from monkeys. Lennon's alternative (to an evolution he didn't understand) hypothesis is some sort of direct lineage between humans and
fish. Goodness knows what that assumption was based on. He had no scientific background and his criticism of evolution isn't worth taking seriously.

Yeah, there are "modernized" versions of creationism which try to rationalize that each "day" really refers to a billion years or somesuch. The only problem is that there is nothing in the original creation myth to indicate such symbolism.

However I noted when Yoko drifted in herself, she said something very strange about her husband's formernd:

"They were like mediums.
They weren't conscious of all they were saying,
But it was coming through them."

This implies John had told her about something meant to be heard one way that inadvertently had a parallel audio transcription manifest, perhaps several instances. When an interviewer asked John if he was upset about people reading things into his work

that were not there he replied,

"It IS there.
It's like abstract art, really."

You're giving Yoko a lot more credit than I am willing to give her. Yoko didn't witness the Beatles at work until 1968, and even then she appears to have sat there resentfully, feeling she was the one who belonged in front of the microphone. She didn't
know or care about their creative processes. She was out to promote herself.

Yoko's talk about the Beatles being "mediums" makes me cringe. It's on par with her admission that she bought Egyptian artifacts for their "magical powers," or her having the interviewer (David Sheff) vetted by her astrologers. She was mired in
superstition and not of sound mind.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:26:33 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:12:27 AM UTC-7, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:21:14 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ -

but righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own

personal conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the
oppressor minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering
in slavery. Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood,

John would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

The full text is available online, it's Jean Shepherd's interview for Playboy; my commentary version delves into key points hinted by the actual content, separating from the high-energy banter for media consumption. They were resuming a national

tour with two shows in Exeter, and it took place around 11 pm in their Torquay hotel room. The sense is that a tape ran as a rambling conversation developed, and it all got printed verbatim.

Anyone can now hear the pro-religion single minute from John Lennon's interview with David Wigg (10:07 to 11:08 in the link below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0Y4ul32U8

For those who do not want to be bothered listening to this rare, intriguing interview, here is brief transcription --

DW: "John, on one broadcast in France, you said that you were God. Were you serious about that? Do you really FEEL you are God?"

JL: "We're all God. Christ said The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, and that's what it means. And the Indians say that, and the Zen people say that: It's a basic thing of religion - We're All God. I'm not A god, or THE God - NOT THE God! - But we'

re all God, and we're all potentially divine, and potentially evil. We all have everything within us, and The Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, AND within us. And if you look hard enough, you'll see it."

DW: "Do you then believe in life after death?"

JL: "I do. Without any doubt I believe in it."

DW: "Have you had any special experiences that make you believe so convincingly?"

JL: "In meditation, on drugs, on diets, I've been aware of a Soul, and been aware of The Power."

*

Even the infamously controversial Maureen Cleave interview involved discussion of a book about Christ's Disciples, "The Passover Plot."

I honestly have no idea what it means to say "We're all God." I don't consider myself godlike. Are bad guys also God according to John?

If God created everything, then what material is it ALL made from? Having a fragment of the Godhead's divinity through existence itself is not the same as BEING The Godhead, it is a simple distinction. I doubt many evil figures throughout history ever

thought themselves so - there is always a justification, rationalizing whatever is done as improvements. Evil people simply exercise free will in ways that do not please God, to eventually incur a negative judgment.

So bearing a fragment of divinity carries responsibility that one's lifetime(s) might not manifest as righteous acts.

Any religious statement will be controversial until the soul separation (Reaping) events make the esoteric explicit - but of course then it will be too late to repent and convert.

Remember that JL from 1964 was saying The Beatles were not show business, it was a task that once performed would be finished, there could be no gimmicks or tricks to keep things going (despite what people thought), and that the project should be

completed in about five years (i.e., circa 1969). In 1980 he quoted the Bible that there is nothing new under the sun, so an existing story as subtext source was being insinuated.

"If you want to use The Beatles or John and Yoko, people are expecting us to do something FOR them - that's not what's gonna happen: because THEY'RE the ones that didn't understand ANY message that came before anyway, and they're the ones that will

FOLLOW Hitler, or follow the Reverend Moon, or whatever. FOLLOWING is not what it's about."

More to your issue: "I think the idea of leadership is that old Judao-Christian idea of the separateness of God - FROM us, as being OUTSIDE of us - the Other. We ARE The Other: there is only One. So therefore, people kind of expect more from us than

they expect from themselves... We take responsibility for the WHOLE THING, because we're ALL responsible for the whole thing."

A reunion of his former band suggested the crowd would be "expecting God to perform."

The rooftop concert controlled the elements of their actual concerts: they could not be shouted down, their personas and movements were not a distraction from the music, and the excuse the fans already had the records since the material was new.

Canonical texts attributed to Henoch include a dream involving animals that forecast the entire course of human history, from Cain killing Abel to the Apocalyptic period. It has correct chronology and scenarios about the ascension of Elijah, Christ and

His disciples, Constantine's three sons, etc. leading into the Nazi Holocaust: the next passage could be the first instance of Isaiah 6, regarding an inability to properly process audio-visual material, which Jesus reiterated. The story has one of the
eyes-open sheep group being killed, then someone represented as ram also opens his eyes and sprouts a horn of Faith, which many try to break. Ultimately an Abyss opens in the physical and astral dimensions simultaneously, into which the 'blind sheep' are
thrust with their unrighteous leaders, along with the demons who were actually guiding them.

The open eyes signify awareness of the subliminal aspects, to which the blind sheep remain oblivious.

The old tunes brought out for 1969 had some musical communication that was too fast and unfamiliar to expect conscious comprehension by the people in the street. The opening of "Dig A Pony" just seems like a rapid rambling guitar passage that repeats -

but without giving away the startling whole message, the first portion sounds like,

'Jesus was a Leader -
THE Apostle Leader -
But without...'

The next five transcribed words completing that musically hidden remark is essentially dismissive of those thinking declaring themselves a follower is all that was required.

George Harrison in "Something" with the line, "You know I believe, and how," was announcing his self-confirmation was complete - certainly enough had occurred to reinforce his faith. Yet with John's "God" we have the contrasting, cynical view, actually

a 'Crisis of Faith," which takes into account the public reaction in a more practical way - yes, there was a big reaction, but not the one that was anticipated, of clarity with conceptual esotericism. John knew that although his band was intellectual,
that was not their appeal.

John proverbially described how The Beatles were in the crow's nest or at the masthead, but we are all in the same boat.

Old Siam Sir, that's worth a revisit.

That's one of Paul's most underrated albums.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:24:46 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:44:56 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 4:27:02 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:29:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ -

but righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was

Lennon courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

I wish I could agree with you. However, if one looks at Lennon's existence at that time, there is no escaping the fact that he was confused. He was giving control over Double Fantasy to Ono -- who was by her own admission guided by pychics and

astrologers (and who was conducting not one but two extramarital affairs at the time). Lennon's Playboy interview if full of paranoia and delusion -- for example Lennon's claim that McCartney had "subconsciously sabotaged" Lennon's best work. Lennon's
best retort to people who thought he was being manipulated by Ono was "Fuck you brother and sister." Lennon had recently emerged from a phase of following televangelist Pat Robertson. And then if you listen to the audio of the Playboy interview, there is
real anger in his voice towards this idea (evolution) he had no understanding of.

John wasn't thinking straight.

I did hear the interview, and I think your tendency is to presume when JL spoke with intensity it was more like insanity, without even addressing his actual words and the ideas they reflect, which could explain the emotion. In religious texts

evolution has to be inferred from the 'Days of Creation' being figurative and protracted.

Not insanity per se, but ignorance. Darwin didn't say that monkeys "turned into" men or even that men evolved from monkeys. Lennon's alternative (to an evolution he didn't understand) hypothesis is some sort of direct lineage between humans and fish.

Goodness knows what that assumption was based on. He had no scientific background and his criticism of evolution isn't worth taking seriously.

Yeah, there are "modernized" versions of creationism which try to rationalize that each "day" really refers to a billion years or somesuch. The only problem is that there is nothing in the original creation myth to indicate such symbolism.

However I noted when Yoko drifted in herself, she said something very strange about her husband's formernd:

"They were like mediums.
They weren't conscious of all they were saying,
But it was coming through them."

This implies John had told her about something meant to be heard one way that inadvertently had a parallel audio transcription manifest, perhaps several instances. When an interviewer asked John if he was upset about people reading things into his

work that were not there he replied,

"It IS there.
It's like abstract art, really."

You're giving Yoko a lot more credit than I am willing to give her. Yoko didn't witness the Beatles at work until 1968, and even then she appears to have sat there resentfully, feeling she was the one who belonged in front of the microphone. She didn't

know or care about their creative processes. She was out to promote herself.

Yoko's talk about the Beatles being "mediums" makes me cringe. It's on par with her admission that she bought Egyptian artifacts for their "magical powers," or her having the interviewer (David Sheff) vetted by her astrologers. She was mired in

superstition and not of sound mind.

I gave my impression of the only way she could have uttered such a statement: it had to come from John, which she knew he would not have said himself publicly, but was important enough to interject vaguely. There are several instances where The Beatles
created sounds obviously intending one idea, while the way it manifested inexplicably also sounds like it could be something else. Paul said things take on millions of meanings in 1967.

There was a sad growing apart with Cynthia, evident in the song whose working title was "You Don't Get Me," emerging months before John met Yoko in 1966. Yoko gave John a mental workout he compared to his collaborating with Paul. I am looking at the
timing of their meeting on 8 November 1966, against the final Beatle album release date of 8 May 1970: that is exactly 3.5 years to the day, timing of the second half of the critical seven-year period, given as 1260 days. The first half for 'sacrifice
and oblation' was forty two months, matching the debut album month of March 1963 continuing through the end of August 1966 (i.e., the touring period as published artists).

Yoko did not have to be known for her vocal modulation, but instead there are implications consistent with Bag Productions, white clothing, wrapped in sackcloth events etc., and the mission of peace signified by olive trees. And that association emerged
in the latter half of the period, just as foretold. So the very thing that people thought was tearing the band apart was a sign the second stage was underway.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:11:08 PM UTC-7, curtis...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:44:56 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 4:27:02 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:29:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ -

but righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own personal

conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the oppressor
minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering in slavery.
Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood, John

would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was

Lennon courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

I wish I could agree with you. However, if one looks at Lennon's existence at that time, there is no escaping the fact that he was confused. He was giving control over Double Fantasy to Ono -- who was by her own admission guided by pychics and

astrologers (and who was conducting not one but two extramarital affairs at the time). Lennon's Playboy interview if full of paranoia and delusion -- for example Lennon's claim that McCartney had "subconsciously sabotaged" Lennon's best work. Lennon's
best retort to people who thought he was being manipulated by Ono was "Fuck you brother and sister." Lennon had recently emerged from a phase of following televangelist Pat Robertson. And then if you listen to the audio of the Playboy interview, there is
real anger in his voice towards this idea (evolution) he had no understanding of.

John wasn't thinking straight.

I did hear the interview, and I think your tendency is to presume when JL spoke with intensity it was more like insanity, without even addressing his actual words and the ideas they reflect, which could explain the emotion. In religious texts

evolution has to be inferred from the 'Days of Creation' being figurative and protracted.

However I noted when Yoko drifted in herself, she said something very strange about her husband's former band:

"They were like mediums.
They weren't conscious of all they were saying,
But it was coming through them."

This implies John had told her about something meant to be heard one way that inadvertently had a parallel audio transcription manifest, perhaps several instances. When an interviewer asked John if he was upset about people reading things into his

work that were not there he replied,

"It IS there.
It's like abstract art, really."

In 1967 Paul McCartney told David Frost,

"Everything has a message -
But you can't just pick out one little thing and say,
'Is THAT their message?'
Everything we do is never intended to have a great deep message -
But it HAS."

It was PM who made a distinction about the passage of time affecting perception of JL's controversial Cleave interview.

"Was it a mistake?
I don't know.
In the SHORT term, yes.
Maybe not in the LONG term."

Harrison thought Christians feeling they had a franchise on Jesus could be false representatives, indoctrinating him from an early age; but the view in India was to withhold belief from ANYTHING unless you have direct perception. So George embraced

the notion of discovering esoteric truth for himself through books and mystics.

The messages and sequencing from the second side of the "A Hard Day's Night" album demonstrate that Lennon was acutely aware of the intricacies of Mary Magdalene's encounter with the Risen Christ at the tomb, where when she attempted to touch Him,

Jesus basically responded, "You Can't Do That"! John in the middle plays guitar in the style of Wilson Pickett, subliminally elaborating that Ascension to the Father was required before He could be physically touched. And there is the vocal line, "If
they'd seen you talking that way they'd laugh in my face," that transmutes the ending into "...they'd laugh at my Faith."

The vocalists in some tunes have lyrics that allow for role-playing, sometimes as inanimate objects - the next stage in my book series covers the "Help!" phase, and "Another Girl" seems to be from the point of view of The Cross itself, temporarily

carried by Simon of Cyrene, yet with a destiny linked to the Lord. Cyrene is known for ruins very similar to those used for the song scene in the Bahamas portion of the film.

Lennon was extremely lucid regarding his group's collective accomplishments.

"With The Beatles, the records are the point,
NOT The Beatles as individuals.
You don't need the package,
Just as you don't need the Christian package or the Marxist package to get the message.
People always got the image I was an anti-Christ or anti-religion.
I'm NOT.
I'm a MOST religious fellow.
I was brought up a Christian and I only NOW understand SOME of the things that Christ was saying in those parables...
The people who are hung up on The Beatles and the 'Sixties dream MISSED the whole point when The Beatles and the 'Sixties dream BECAME the point."

The best evidence that Paul McCartney wants people to reach that enlightened level is the subliminal content of "Old Siam Sir" from the "Back To The Egg" (the last for Wings). The manic opening suggests a repetition of,

'Broke up, Broke up!'

As that is going a single note intrudes, implying,

'...But -'

Then the drums seem to finish that thought -

'BUT NOT -
SETTLED!'

Then a vaguely Oriental theme chimes in, yet the tonal melody suggests,

'When The Beatles Are Consummated,
They'll Be Known As
"A Band Subliminal"'

This follows the vocal line melody and repeats frequently.
A powerful guitar riff quasi-vocalizes,

'REAP What's Sown By "The Legend"!'

This repeats until undergoing a variation -

'REAP What's Sown By The -
Sown By "The Myth"!'

The drum sequence also has a variation in the middle when the opening bit repeats, to imply instead,

'BUT NOT -
CON-SUMMATED!'

The mood cools in a few quietly played guitar chords, suggesting,

'One Step Away...'

And the guitar flourish afterwards seems to append,

'...From Consummating'

This appears deliberate, a belief that the "long term" enlightened perspective would emerge eventually, because The Beatles' collection of songs already efficiently planted something to be discerned later.

Is it fair to say George was a mystic?

I posted about the opening lyrics of "Blue Jay Way" later eerily applying to the circumstances of Kobe Bryant's death in a helicopter crash. The drawing of a face with eyes looking upwards in the Sgt Pepper tableau crowd was a depiction of Babujee, a
mystic so powerful he would put a curse on the film to prevent photographs from being taken (Paul McCartney explained to Alan Aldrich); it was George Harrison's idea to include gurus when Peter Blake tried to apply his 'list of heroes' approach to the
project (Blake's other work had the figures placed differently).

Despite writing a series of prophecies, Nostradamus did not want to be called a prophet.

I think what the Foursome collectively achieved during that precise period in that exact way, particularly with the timing of Jerusalem being returned to Israeli control from Jordan as a result of the Six-Day War mid-1967, if all resources are utilized,
plays into a conglomeration of prophecies that do not require the protagonists to do anything as mundane as mystic channeling. These are end-times inferences regarding the confirmation of a divine covenant where Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy dovetails
with Revelation 11 for the final week, a seven-year period broken into two nearly equal parts.

The transcription I gave for the synthesizer part in "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" that seemed to challenge with martyrdom does not seem to have been a conscious message, but inexplicably co-existing as audio-parallel with what they were intentionally trying
to get across. A true testimony to Jesus would assimilate the spirit of prophecy. Nostradamus obviously picked up their future influence in I.14, the assassination of John in I.57, the knife attack on George in I.52 and II.98; but there are even more
subtle references, like VI.20 where a 'make-believe union' lamentably only has a short duration, inducing limited personal change yet a broader sense of cultural reform. Remember, The Beatles refused to play to segregated audiences, there was the ongoing
civil rights movement.

I should mention this recent total lunar eclipse (15 May 2022) could be immediate precursor for something unprecedented: the 21 May Mercury solar conjunct will precede by 12 hours a lunar adjacency with Neptune, then conjunction with Saturn five minutes
later. The scenario of a Great Shaking has these elements associated separately, like disjointed puzzle pieces. The Third Secret of Fatima outlined a papal ambush consistent with V.22, whose enumeration matches 22 May, feast day for Saint John of Parma
(mentioned as a location) - the 'two reds making cheer together' could be Mars with Jupiter (and its Giant Red Spot) on 29 May.

The I.16 quatrain I deduced to predict military killing of civilians from 28 January 2022 (in August 2006) has a last line that parallels Revelation 18:8, where God has commanded three punishments - a plague that causes mourning, famine shortages, and
death, illuminated in I.16 to mean 'by military hand.' There was a further order for a double cataclysm, while being 'remembered before God.'

It is only those who learn a New Song (probably a collaboration between 'Moses and The Lamb') on an esoteric level who will comprise the first group of 144,000 to inherit the divine orders lost by the dark forces. As McCartney said, "Music is very
mystical."

Although far from that stage in my series, I can say not all of the "Let It Be" period songs concerned the Nativity subliminally. Harrison's approach seemed very close to Lennon-McCartney until the Eastern instrumentation allowed his theological
knowledge to explode into extremely sophisticated concepts that were far advanced from the more basic idea-representations that were the typical format. Neither of his songs then were focused on the pregnancy of Mary, and the lyrics only obliquely
relate to the musically constructed messages (Lennon does this with slide guitar in "For You Blue"). But if one were to get a parallel message that had a genuine prophetic meaning, that could be a cosmic consequence.

The descending guitar part from "I've Got A Feeling" that got special attention is where Harrison got the spotlight for the Nativity element, played with an ending like,

'...The Virgin Maid!'

The project had them all contributing to a unified audio performance to get these ideas across, George was struggling to remain a relevant participant in providing his unique skills. Any acknowledgment of prophetic fulfillment would have been of limited
use towards completing the multitude of steps the overall task required. George offers the opinion whatever they do would work out, trusting in serendipity to make things right, as it seemed to before.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:35:21 PM UTC-7, Curtis Eagal wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:24:46 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:44:56 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 4:27:02 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:29:12 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 11:10 pm, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our Father"

prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's favorite
possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a similar
anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult. Which

brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group is

being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ -

but righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own

personal conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the
oppressor minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering
in slavery. Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood,

John would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC. >>>
Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

Good point, he did plenty of that. How about Lennon's denunciation of Darwin as "absolute garbage" because "monkeys aren't changing into people now"? Is that what it looks like -- i.e., Donald Trump-level ignorance and stupidity -- or was

Lennon courting controversy? (Sometimes audio of this [Playboy] interview can be found online, but one has to dig to find the particular passage.)

Deliberately 'winding up' people who are stupid enough to think along
those lines. Imagine the things he would be saying in this era to mock
the conspiracy/trump/etc rabble !

geoff

I wish I could agree with you. However, if one looks at Lennon's existence at that time, there is no escaping the fact that he was confused. He was giving control over Double Fantasy to Ono -- who was by her own admission guided by pychics and

astrologers (and who was conducting not one but two extramarital affairs at the time). Lennon's Playboy interview if full of paranoia and delusion -- for example Lennon's claim that McCartney had "subconsciously sabotaged" Lennon's best work. Lennon's
best retort to people who thought he was being manipulated by Ono was "Fuck you brother and sister." Lennon had recently emerged from a phase of following televangelist Pat Robertson. And then if you listen to the audio of the Playboy interview, there is
real anger in his voice towards this idea (evolution) he had no understanding of.

John wasn't thinking straight.

I did hear the interview, and I think your tendency is to presume when JL spoke with intensity it was more like insanity, without even addressing his actual words and the ideas they reflect, which could explain the emotion. In religious texts

evolution has to be inferred from the 'Days of Creation' being figurative and protracted.

Not insanity per se, but ignorance. Darwin didn't say that monkeys "turned into" men or even that men evolved from monkeys. Lennon's alternative (to an evolution he didn't understand) hypothesis is some sort of direct lineage between humans and fish.

Goodness knows what that assumption was based on. He had no scientific background and his criticism of evolution isn't worth taking seriously.

Yeah, there are "modernized" versions of creationism which try to rationalize that each "day" really refers to a billion years or somesuch. The only problem is that there is nothing in the original creation myth to indicate such symbolism.

However I noted when Yoko drifted in herself, she said something very strange about her husband's formernd:

"They were like mediums.
They weren't conscious of all they were saying,
But it was coming through them."

This implies John had told her about something meant to be heard one way that inadvertently had a parallel audio transcription manifest, perhaps several instances. When an interviewer asked John if he was upset about people reading things into his

work that were not there he replied,

"It IS there.
It's like abstract art, really."

You're giving Yoko a lot more credit than I am willing to give her. Yoko didn't witness the Beatles at work until 1968, and even then she appears to have sat there resentfully, feeling she was the one who belonged in front of the microphone. She didn'

t know or care about their creative processes. She was out to promote herself.

Yoko's talk about the Beatles being "mediums" makes me cringe. It's on par with her admission that she bought Egyptian artifacts for their "magical powers," or her having the interviewer (David Sheff) vetted by her astrologers. She was mired in

superstition and not of sound mind.

I gave my impression of the only way she could have uttered such a statement: it had to come from John, which she knew he would not have said himself publicly, but was important enough to interject vaguely. There are several instances where The Beatles

created sounds obviously intending one idea, while the way it manifested inexplicably also sounds like it could be something else. Paul said things take on millions of meanings in 1967.

There was a sad growing apart with Cynthia, evident in the song whose working title was "You Don't Get Me," emerging months before John met Yoko in 1966. Yoko gave John a mental workout he compared to his collaborating with Paul. I am looking at the

timing of their meeting on 8 November 1966, against the final Beatle album release date of 8 May 1970: that is exactly 3.5 years to the day, timing of the second half of the critical seven-year period, given as 1260 days. The first half for 'sacrifice
and oblation' was forty two months, matching the debut album month of March 1963 continuing through the end of August 1966 (i.e., the touring period as published artists).

Yoko did not have to be known for her vocal modulation, but instead there are implications consistent with Bag Productions, white clothing, wrapped in sackcloth events etc., and the mission of peace signified by olive trees. And that association

emerged in the latter half of the period, just as foretold. So the very thing that people thought was tearing the band apart was a sign the second stage was underway.

I did not see any influence of Yoko on John in the early 1969 project. Lennon explained his thought process for the cinematic facet eloquently, heard near the end of 'Fly On The Wall' audio montage. He was saying they could go anywhere, but were
building up a castle around themselves instead. As group leader, it was his responsibility to coordinate the best possible presentation of their work, which objectively seemed to be the spectacle staged at the ruined amphitheater in north Africa, and he
tried to rally support for this by reminding them of how they performed together on the roof at the ashram in India: just think of it like that with instruments, trying to bring that communal feeling to boost their morale.

Ultimately Ringo had a contracted film schedule that would not allow for much wavering on those plans. John thought the visual component could be liberating: "It takes all the weight of 'Where's the gimmick? What is it?' out of it, 'cause you just, you
know -

God's the gimmick."

However, Lennon had a vision placing a lot of pressure on a single moment: John wanted to synchronize a certain part of a certain song with the arrival of dawn, likely using the start of a new day as a metaphor for Christ's emergence into the world.

"I'd be thrilled to do it, you know,
Just timing it so's the Sun came up -
{snaps fingers}

...Right on the middle eight."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:07:39 AM UTC-7, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:26:33 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:12:27 AM UTC-7, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:21:14 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our

Father" prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's
favorite possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a
similar anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult.

Which brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole group

is being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none of us
believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the conditions
of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-Christ -

but righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own

personal conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the
oppressor minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering
in slavery. Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood,

John would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple rational
philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of being evil
or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

The full text is available online, it's Jean Shepherd's interview for Playboy; my commentary version delves into key points hinted by the actual content, separating from the high-energy banter for media consumption. They were resuming a national

tour with two shows in Exeter, and it took place around 11 pm in their Torquay hotel room. The sense is that a tape ran as a rambling conversation developed, and it all got printed verbatim.

Anyone can now hear the pro-religion single minute from John Lennon's interview with David Wigg (10:07 to 11:08 in the link below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0Y4ul32U8

For those who do not want to be bothered listening to this rare, intriguing interview, here is brief transcription --

DW: "John, on one broadcast in France, you said that you were God. Were you serious about that? Do you really FEEL you are God?"

JL: "We're all God. Christ said The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, and that's what it means. And the Indians say that, and the Zen people say that: It's a basic thing of religion - We're All God. I'm not A god, or THE God - NOT THE God! - But

we're all God, and we're all potentially divine, and potentially evil. We all have everything within us, and The Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, AND within us. And if you look hard enough, you'll see it."

DW: "Do you then believe in life after death?"

JL: "I do. Without any doubt I believe in it."

DW: "Have you had any special experiences that make you believe so convincingly?"

JL: "In meditation, on drugs, on diets, I've been aware of a Soul, and been aware of The Power."

*

Even the infamously controversial Maureen Cleave interview involved discussion of a book about Christ's Disciples, "The Passover Plot."

I honestly have no idea what it means to say "We're all God." I don't consider myself godlike. Are bad guys also God according to John?

If God created everything, then what material is it ALL made from? Having a fragment of the Godhead's divinity through existence itself is not the same as BEING The Godhead, it is a simple distinction. I doubt many evil figures throughout history

ever thought themselves so - there is always a justification, rationalizing whatever is done as improvements. Evil people simply exercise free will in ways that do not please God, to eventually incur a negative judgment.

So bearing a fragment of divinity carries responsibility that one's lifetime(s) might not manifest as righteous acts.

Any religious statement will be controversial until the soul separation (Reaping) events make the esoteric explicit - but of course then it will be too late to repent and convert.

Remember that JL from 1964 was saying The Beatles were not show business, it was a task that once performed would be finished, there could be no gimmicks or tricks to keep things going (despite what people thought), and that the project should be

completed in about five years (i.e., circa 1969). In 1980 he quoted the Bible that there is nothing new under the sun, so an existing story as subtext source was being insinuated.

"If you want to use The Beatles or John and Yoko, people are expecting us to do something FOR them - that's not what's gonna happen: because THEY'RE the ones that didn't understand ANY message that came before anyway, and they're the ones that will

FOLLOW Hitler, or follow the Reverend Moon, or whatever. FOLLOWING is not what it's about."

More to your issue: "I think the idea of leadership is that old Judao-Christian idea of the separateness of God - FROM us, as being OUTSIDE of us - the Other. We ARE The Other: there is only One. So therefore, people kind of expect more from us than

they expect from themselves... We take responsibility for the WHOLE THING, because we're ALL responsible for the whole thing."

A reunion of his former band suggested the crowd would be "expecting God to perform."

The rooftop concert controlled the elements of their actual concerts: they could not be shouted down, their personas and movements were not a distraction from the music, and the excuse the fans already had the records since the material was new.

Canonical texts attributed to Henoch include a dream involving animals that forecast the entire course of human history, from Cain killing Abel to the Apocalyptic period. It has correct chronology and scenarios about the ascension of Elijah, Christ

and His disciples, Constantine's three sons, etc. leading into the Nazi Holocaust: the next passage could be the first instance of Isaiah 6, regarding an inability to properly process audio-visual material, which Jesus reiterated. The story has one of
the eyes-open sheep group being killed, then someone represented as ram also opens his eyes and sprouts a horn of Faith, which many try to break. Ultimately an Abyss opens in the physical and astral dimensions simultaneously, into which the 'blind sheep'
are thrust with their unrighteous leaders, along with the demons who were actually guiding them.

The open eyes signify awareness of the subliminal aspects, to which the blind sheep remain oblivious.

The old tunes brought out for 1969 had some musical communication that was too fast and unfamiliar to expect conscious comprehension by the people in the street. The opening of "Dig A Pony" just seems like a rapid rambling guitar passage that repeats

- but without giving away the startling whole message, the first portion sounds like,

'Jesus was a Leader -
THE Apostle Leader -
But without...'

The next five transcribed words completing that musically hidden remark is essentially dismissive of those thinking declaring themselves a follower is all that was required.

George Harrison in "Something" with the line, "You know I believe, and how," was announcing his self-confirmation was complete - certainly enough had occurred to reinforce his faith. Yet with John's "God" we have the contrasting, cynical view,

actually a 'Crisis of Faith," which takes into account the public reaction in a more practical way - yes, there was a big reaction, but not the one that was anticipated, of clarity with conceptual esotericism. John knew that although his band was
intellectual, that was not their appeal.

John proverbially described how The Beatles were in the crow's nest or at the masthead, but we are all in the same boat.

Old Siam Sir, that's worth a revisit.

That's one of Paul's most underrated albums.

The title implies 'Old's I Am,' there was video featuring a lot of the "Back To The Egg" (there's some heavy embryonic-reversal symbolism) songs, some tracks were recorded in a castle. The lyrics include some British locations, in a fanciful tale for
the conscious mind, while the music itself takes the subconscious elsewhere - by unexpectedly having instruments seem to be voicing phrases on a theme with expressive cadence. The cover image had the bizarre twist of unrolling a living room rug to view
Earth through a floor portal. That was after the "London Town" cover featured the Thames in the same position as 'distant Earth,' some recorded on a yacht in the Virgin Islands.

The BTTE inner sleeve had the dome of Chapel where the Holy Shroud resides in Turin, designed by Guarino Guarini.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 6:25:01 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:07:39 AM UTC-7, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:26:33 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:12:27 AM UTC-7, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:21:14 AM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:11:37 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:

On 28/04/2022 4:03 am, Norbert K wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, eagali...@gmail.com wrote:

The song "Imagine" resulted from discussing a book about prayer with Dick Gregory - I have a family member who insists the line about "no religion" proves he was promoting heathenism, while my opinion is the theme follows the "Our

Father" prayer: the best way for God's Will to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven is to stop arguing about prejudices and possessions, manifest a rational society in the here and now. The full Maureen Cleave article from 1966 noted that two of John's
favorite possessions were a Bible and a Crucifix; but wife Cynthia's gift of mechanized caged singing bird struck him as offensively bourgeois and partially inspired "And Your Bird Can Sing" - "when your prized possessions start to bring you down" is a
similar anti-materialistic theme as "Can't Buy Me Love."

Your family member has a point; Lennon did occasionally purport to be a "born-again pagan." He had Christian phases, too -- one of which Yoko squelched because she feared it would prevent her from controlling him through the occult.

Which brings up the point that he went along with Ono's occultism. And we know that John also had a soft spot for gurus. Like I said before, he was all over the map; he did not subscribe to any one belief system for too long.

Didn't Lennon explain somewhere that by "Imagine no religion" what he meant to say is that there should be no "one religion" that excluded others?

I expect we'd agree Lennon did not wish for an *absence* of religion any more than he wished for an absence of possessions.

Did anyone ever discover the title of the book gifted to Lennon by Dick Gregory?

John called his period circa 1969 "Christian Communist," recognizing it as a phase. We think of him pushing people's buttons on controversial issues, but in my book on the "Beatles For Sale" era ("The Quality Of Mersey") the whole

group is being interviewed together, and they projected a unified religious perspective ("more agnostic than atheistic" was Lennon's assessment), with Paul and Ringo making some provocative remarks. Paul said, "We probably seem antireligious because none
of us believe in God"; Harrison declared, "John's our official religious spokesman." John said that's how most people really feel, with Ringo agreeing, "It's better to admit it than be a hypocrite." Lennon saw hypocrisy in the clergy lamenting the
conditions of the poor without being charitable to them. McCartney mentioned the cost of a single bronze door in the Vatican.

Paul made it clear none of that discussion involved the actual teachings of Jesus: "Believe it or, we're not anti-Christ." Then Ringo qualified that with, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian." So there was agnosticism, leaning pro-

Christ - but righteously anti-Christian, shared by the entire group.

So the song "God" uses the title word to address the typical cultural perception, the concept that placates pain and suffering with the dubious promise of eternal happiness once everything is over. It could not be about Lennon's own

personal conclusion that God does not exist, since he described in a 1968 interview that through drugs, diet and meditation he had sensed a Higher Power. What is being disbelieved in "God" is resorting to the victim mindset that effectively allows the
oppressor minimal resistance. The idea is the more pain you have, the more God you need psychologically as a coping mechanism, usually for something that shouldn't be happening in the first place. Think of the 'Negro Spiritual' songs borne of suffering
in slavery. Pie in the sky when you die by and by.

At the time John was completing primal therapy with Arthur Janov, who considered religion madness, and Lennon later admitted the attempt to purge it from his psyche failed. He called himself "a most religious fellow." Even in childhood,

John would point upwards and say "Somebody's watching" when he detected mischief; once he walked in announcing he had just seen God. John spoke of other religious figures who were advanced spiritually like Jesus, with admiration for their simple
rational philosophies that few seem to grasp. An interviewer brought up the rumor he proclaimed he WAS God, receiving the reply he had not meant he was "A God or THE God," but shared a fragment of divinity: "We have all things within us," the option of
being evil or righteous through exercise of free will. He said the recurrent dichotomy of moral extremes was summed up in the Christ-versus-Hitler contrast.

I remember an interview with Lennon in which he pronounced vaguely that "God is an energy, a power source," but that "I never believed it was any one thing."

Under Janov's influence, Lennon asserted that "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Then there were his televangelist phases, during which he presumably accepted the god of Christianity.

And the "born-again pagan" identification came in 1979, IIRC.

Again, I see a guy whose beliefs fluctuated wildly depending on what drugs he was on, what TV he was watching, and who he was hanging out with.

More than that, comments not intended to indicate any genuine belief,
but merely an off-the-cuff comments intended to rankle the other party,
or to engender controversy for controversy’s sake.

An approach which certainly seems to have worked extremely well with
some fanatics !

geoff

A Beatle in a 1964 group interview (published in 1965) said, "We probably seem antireligious because of the fact that none of us believes in God" - that was Paul McCartney.

When Paul continued, "We're not anti-Christ," one of them added, "Just anti-pope and anti-Christian" - that was Ringo Starr.

McCartney expressed outrage that there was a societal stigma against atheism.

Really? How brave, if so. I'd very much like to see a quotation.

The full text is available online, it's Jean Shepherd's interview for Playboy; my commentary version delves into key points hinted by the actual content, separating from the high-energy banter for media consumption. They were resuming a

national tour with two shows in Exeter, and it took place around 11 pm in their Torquay hotel room. The sense is that a tape ran as a rambling conversation developed, and it all got printed verbatim.

Anyone can now hear the pro-religion single minute from John Lennon's interview with David Wigg (10:07 to 11:08 in the link below):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db0Y4ul32U8

For those who do not want to be bothered listening to this rare, intriguing interview, here is brief transcription --

DW: "John, on one broadcast in France, you said that you were God. Were you serious about that? Do you really FEEL you are God?"

JL: "We're all God. Christ said The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, and that's what it means. And the Indians say that, and the Zen people say that: It's a basic thing of religion - We're All God. I'm not A god, or THE God - NOT THE God! - But

we're all God, and we're all potentially divine, and potentially evil. We all have everything within us, and The Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, AND within us. And if you look hard enough, you'll see it."

DW: "Do you then believe in life after death?"

JL: "I do. Without any doubt I believe in it."

DW: "Have you had any special experiences that make you believe so convincingly?"

JL: "In meditation, on drugs, on diets, I've been aware of a Soul, and been aware of The Power."

*

Even the infamously controversial Maureen Cleave interview involved discussion of a book about Christ's Disciples, "The Passover Plot."

I honestly have no idea what it means to say "We're all God." I don't consider myself godlike. Are bad guys also God according to John?

If God created everything, then what material is it ALL made from? Having a fragment of the Godhead's divinity through existence itself is not the same as BEING The Godhead, it is a simple distinction. I doubt many evil figures throughout history

ever thought themselves so - there is always a justification, rationalizing whatever is done as improvements. Evil people simply exercise free will in ways that do not please God, to eventually incur a negative judgment.

So bearing a fragment of divinity carries responsibility that one's lifetime(s) might not manifest as righteous acts.

Any religious statement will be controversial until the soul separation (Reaping) events make the esoteric explicit - but of course then it will be too late to repent and convert.

Remember that JL from 1964 was saying The Beatles were not show business, it was a task that once performed would be finished, there could be no gimmicks or tricks to keep things going (despite what people thought), and that the project should be

completed in about five years (i.e., circa 1969). In 1980 he quoted the Bible that there is nothing new under the sun, so an existing story as subtext source was being insinuated.

"If you want to use The Beatles or John and Yoko, people are expecting us to do something FOR them - that's not what's gonna happen: because THEY'RE the ones that didn't understand ANY message that came before anyway, and they're the ones that will

FOLLOW Hitler, or follow the Reverend Moon, or whatever. FOLLOWING is not what it's about."

More to your issue: "I think the idea of leadership is that old Judao-Christian idea of the separateness of God - FROM us, as being OUTSIDE of us - the Other. We ARE The Other: there is only One. So therefore, people kind of expect more from us

than they expect from themselves... We take responsibility for the WHOLE THING, because we're ALL responsible for the whole thing."

A reunion of his former band suggested the crowd would be "expecting God to perform."

The rooftop concert controlled the elements of their actual concerts: they could not be shouted down, their personas and movements were not a distraction from the music, and the excuse the fans already had the records since the material was new.

Canonical texts attributed to Henoch include a dream involving animals that forecast the entire course of human history, from Cain killing Abel to the Apocalyptic period. It has correct chronology and scenarios about the ascension of Elijah, Christ

and His disciples, Constantine's three sons, etc. leading into the Nazi Holocaust: the next passage could be the first instance of Isaiah 6, regarding an inability to properly process audio-visual material, which Jesus reiterated. The story has one of
the eyes-open sheep group being killed, then someone represented as ram also opens his eyes and sprouts a horn of Faith, which many try to break. Ultimately an Abyss opens in the physical and astral dimensions simultaneously, into which the 'blind sheep'
are thrust with their unrighteous leaders, along with the demons who were actually guiding them.

The open eyes signify awareness of the subliminal aspects, to which the blind sheep remain oblivious.

The old tunes brought out for 1969 had some musical communication that was too fast and unfamiliar to expect conscious comprehension by the people in the street. The opening of "Dig A Pony" just seems like a rapid rambling guitar passage that

repeats - but without giving away the startling whole message, the first portion sounds like,

'Jesus was a Leader -
THE Apostle Leader -
But without...'

The next five transcribed words completing that musically hidden remark is essentially dismissive of those thinking declaring themselves a follower is all that was required.

George Harrison in "Something" with the line, "You know I believe, and how," was announcing his self-confirmation was complete - certainly enough had occurred to reinforce his faith. Yet with John's "God" we have the contrasting, cynical view,

actually a 'Crisis of Faith," which takes into account the public reaction in a more practical way - yes, there was a big reaction, but not the one that was anticipated, of clarity with conceptual esotericism. John knew that although his band was
intellectual, that was not their appeal.

John proverbially described how The Beatles were in the crow's nest or at the masthead, but we are all in the same boat.

Old Siam Sir, that's worth a revisit.

That's one of Paul's most underrated albums.

The title implies 'Old's I Am,' there was video featuring a lot of the "Back To The Egg" (there's some heavy embryonic-reversal symbolism) songs, some tracks were recorded in a castle. The lyrics include some British locations, in a fanciful tale for

the conscious mind, while the music itself takes the subconscious elsewhere - by unexpectedly having instruments seem to be voicing phrases on a theme with expressive cadence. The cover image had the bizarre twist of unrolling a living room rug to view
Earth through a floor portal. That was after the "London Town" cover featured the Thames in the same position as 'distant Earth,' some recorded on a yacht in the Virgin Islands.

The BTTE inner sleeve had the dome of Chapel where the Holy Shroud resides in Turin, designed by Guarino Guarini.

I'll have to look for the videos.

What do you think, is it a solid album? I remember that the critics were vicious.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)