Celia Green

[Faust]

Faust,

If you're interested in the goals of this forum, then our disagreement on how a person should live would vanish.

You believe integration in society is valid and intelligent, whereas I do not. That's basically the plot for this story.

If you take welfare checks you're still "integrated." You have an indolent attitude towards society when you self-righteously think you're seperate whereas you rely on society for your living entirely. I don't believe in "integration" in society, I believe in not having others provide for me.

Green made no mention of anything other than her own inward examination, when she described her research area.

Can we contextualise this, and see whether your own future is playing a role in your argument?

What is your personal interest in academic research?

If you read Decline and Fall of Science she says exactly what her research area is. I'm in psychology in academia and I want to go into counselling and some other things. I feel like I should make use of truth as much as possible and help people. Although this forum enables that, I will hopefully make better use of it when I'm "certified," so that people may actually trust me. Although that may be bleak it's the most meaningful self-sufficient career I've so far found, other than hopefully becoming a freelance writer, which is another of my goals.

That is not my belief at all. I did not say abandon science altogether, which is impossible for conscious humans in any case, but not to persist in the mistaken belief that thoughts and beliefs are totally divorced from emotional suffering.

She already knows that emotional suffering can be caused from thoughts and beliefs. It's just that her suffering is caused by her career being ruined, and she doesn't want to be a leech, and doesn't want to work a meagre job.

If you openly dispute the values of your employers, will they continue to give you money?

What about if you openly disagree with your parents' values? Would they let you live at home with them?

And would you lecturers and tutors give you high grades if you openly disagree with their ideas and values?

Hopefully I will be my own employer. My parents allow me to do and think what I want. The third question is a little tougher because although I regularly challenge my profs and TA's, I do not want it to threaten my career. That being said, I would maybe have to find a limit to how far my challenging can go, in this postmodern day and age.

Is she upset that her career is ruined?

If so, then she belongs to the mainstream.

She's upset that her life and livelihood is ruined. And once again, she doesn't want to be a leech.

Instructions that aren't highly conscious, that don't have a good grasp of the nature of Reality in order to see all the likely interractions involved in doing a job properly.

Instructions that are impatient and rushed, performed purely to look like one is doing something.

What? Alot of this is nonsense. If all jobs were like this the world would be in a much worse place than now.

Of course I could, but that would be a waste of my time. Farmers are usually far too busy and tired to think. At the end of the working day, perhaps lasting from 6am to 10pm, they're too tired to question all the traditions they follow blindly, too exhausted to wonder about how to do things more efficiently. Far too tired to wonder about philosophy. The closest they get is a vague wonder when the sun's rising. They're also far too embarrassed to be open thinkers and philosophers, because of the moronic tradition that all intellectuals don't "hoe their corn".

It's not about the farmer being an intellectual, it's about you providing for yourself and still being a thinker. Oh and welfare is definitely not "hoeing your own corn."

The last statement is false. She openly asks for money from others. Green is a fake, so far as I can see.

She NOW asks money from others because her livelihood was destroyed.

[Mitchell Porter]

Kevin has encouraged me to comment since I know a little about Celia Green's works and history. Her career might be periodized as follows: First, as an undergraduate, she tried to get ahead within physics and philosophy at a recognized university - this is in the 1950s. When that did not work out, she created her own research institute and appealed for funds. The work on lucid dreams and out-of-body experiences for which she is known derives from a funded period in the 1960s. After that money ran out, she wrote a manifesto (Decline and Fall of Science) indicating future areas of research, but no more funding came. Later, she found a number of academic sponsors - notably Hans Eysenck, the personality psychologist - and finally acquired a PhD (that brings us to the 1990s), but still didn't get any money. So she - and her collaborators; she has at least two - are trying to raise the funds directly, through investment. (As "Faust13" points out, it costs a lot to set up and equip one's own laboratory, something she wanted but did not get even in the 1960s.) They also produce what might be called libertarian critiques of British society and have sought support for that.

Kevin's first remarks (that she engaged in "empirical research" only for the money) express a rather radical misunderstanding. (In fact, she engaged, unsuccessfully, in soliciting for money - only for the research!) They pertain to this blog post.
http://celiagreen.blogspot.com/2007/05/ ... money.html
As you can see, she is explaining how she ended up among the parapsychologists. She was there for the money (and because it provided an approximation to an academic environment). But her interest was more in the relationship between mind and matter than in the "paranormal" per se. I cannot say to what extent she is personally responsible for her difficulties with academia. She may antagonize people with her honesty, for example. But have no doubt that she has also been up against pervasive and very basic intellectual positions which have served to retard progress - not just her progress, but everyone's progress - and which are generally not even stated forthrightly. That must have done a lot to accentuate her difficulties. To respond to Kelly - pain control is most definitely not her only research interest; but perhaps she thinks she has a better chance of sponsorship there. You must remember that she has spent decades soliciting unsuccessfully for support in other areas, even after exposing the inadequacies of the prevailing schools of thought.

David wants to know why she did not progress further philosophically, instead wasting her life on empirical matters. You would have to ask her, but I imagine that she would simply disagree with your reasoning! - that is, with the inevitability of those philosophical conclusions which you have drawn, but which you do not find expressed in her work. You share a belief in the uncertainty of empirical things, but she apparently does not share your belief in the certainty of "emptiness". I am curious myself as to the relationship between the empirical and the philosophical in her thought. It may be that she sees metaphysical knowledge as no more certain or accessible than physical knowledge, but that for all she knows, some alteration of faculties may make it accessible, and that this alone provides reason to keep investigating the psychological and its relation to the material. But that is just my speculation.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin's first remarks (that she engaged in "empirical research" only for the money) express a rather radical misunderstanding. (In fact, she engaged, unsuccessfully, in soliciting for money - only for the research!) They pertain to this blog post.
http://celiagreen.blogspot.com/2007/05/ ... money.html

Ok, it appears that her time at the Society for Psychical Research was "only for the money" (for use in later research) - and not her entire interest in empirical matters.

[Faust]

Kevin's first remarks (that she engaged in "empirical research" only for the money) express a rather radical misunderstanding. (In fact, she engaged, unsuccessfully, in soliciting for money - only for the research!) They pertain to this blog post.
http://celiagreen.blogspot.com/2007/05/ ... money.html

Ok, it appears that her time at the Society for Psychical Research was "only for the money" (for use in later research) - and not her entire interest in empirical matters.

Kevin, I've realized that you heavily and dangerously underrate empiricism and logical positivism. The fact is is that empiricism is as important as logic, probably even more, since it's REAL and we can actually examine it, whereas logic is not as substantial. Causality is mostly an empirical phenomenon, well maybe. Now that I think of it I can't even imagine a non-causal universe, and if there was one it would be useless. But this doesn't nullify the importance of empiricism at all, especially with regards to spiritual enlightenment and wisdom of Reality that we see and feel.



To Mitchell,

do you know how exactly she was kicked out of her first time in university? Was she even thrown out or is there some other information that we're missing?

[Dan Rowden]

I'm not sure that Green would have been so much kicked out as incapable of fitting in.

[Faust]

I'm not sure that Green would have been so much kicked out as incapable of fitting in.

If by "incapable of fitting in" you mean, "not adhering to modern dumbed down ideology" then she was kicked out.

[keenobserver]

What do you think really ruined her career then?

Without talking to her in person and getting more information, all we can do is speculate. At the moment, in the absence of more information, I suspect that her own self-pity and pride was the major hurdle to her academic career.

But really, I don't care about her academic career. I want to know why she didn't continue with the pursuit of wisdom - since I haven't seen any evidence that she continued with it.

Have you thought of this/She grabbed onto the original idea after hearing someone mention it, not really originating in her own mind, wrote the book to score some points?
I suppose you have but may not want to say. no matter.
Well, will you tell me this/before software changes, One could browse, find a post to respond to, then hit some button i think Quote, sents you off to login, then off you go to respond.
Now it seems im forced to back out once i have found something to respond to, go to login, then try to find my way back to where i was. must be an easier way. dont care to login until im sure i have something to contrribute.
tanx,
oh, missed what might have been a private msg pre-newgeniussoftware, if about $$ Yes still ok to support this cause, but will need box number, back in a few

[Faust]

Have you thought of this/She grabbed onto the original idea after hearing someone mention it, not really originating in her own mind, wrote the book to score some points?
I suppose you have but may not want to say. no matter.

What original idea are you referring to? And what book? Why do you think she would do it to "score some points."? You're saying her pursuit of wisdom isn't genuine??? I'm pretty sure it is.

Well, will you tell me this/before software changes, One could browse, find a post to respond to, then hit some button i think Quote, sents you off to login, then off you go to respond.
Now it seems im forced to back out once i have found something to respond to, go to login, then try to find my way back to where i was. must be an easier way. dont care to login until im sure i have something to contrribute.
tanx,

Have you tried enabling automatic log-in everytime you come on the site? That way, you can just immediately post without any login troubles.

[Mitchell Porter]

[EDIT: I mistakenly attributed this question to Dan Rowden.]

do you know how exactly she was kicked out of her first time in university? Was she even thrown out or is there some other information that we're missing?

She would have been at a residential college while doing her first degree, and complains (in "The Lost Cause") that no-one there helped after the degree ended badly (with respect to the goal of a further academic career; she did actually graduate), but I don't know the details.

[Dan Rowden]

Faust asked that, not me.

[sue hindmarsh]

Mitchell wrote:

I cannot say to what extent she is personally responsible for her difficulties with academia. She may antagonize people with her honesty, for example. But have no doubt that she has also been up against pervasive and very basic intellectual positions which have served to retard progress - not just her progress, but everyone's progress - and which are generally not even stated forthrightly. That must have done a lot to accentuate her difficulties.

What I find interesting about Green is that she was/is quite aware of those “very basic intellectual positions” which “retard progress” – writing two books highlighting those very positions*– but then failed to use her knowledge to help her own progress.

For example: below she writes that she finds academic philosophy, theoretical science, and the literary-intelligentsia limited in their approach to the question of reality. She instead praises those whom she calls her “best candidates”, Nietzsche and Jesus, because they aren’t “sane”: that is, they're not lovers of the herd-mentality. Yet she herself didn’t take to the path of the individual like Nietzsche and Jesus did; instead she joined the herd, thereby sacrificing her freedom of thought.

Celia Green wrote: The question is whether anyone has ever been in any serious way, not sane. I have examined the history of the human race with care. Kant gives the impression that he liked the inconceivable, but his books were too long; Einstein was interested in the Universe, but was bad at psychology; H.G Wells saw that research consisted of taking risks, but declined into sociology.

My best candidates, therefore, are Nietzsche and Christ. It may be objected that their ideas cannot possibly be of interest, since one went mad and the other was crucified.
However, I think we should not hold this against them: they may have felt a trifle isolated.

It truly is bizarre. Green possessed the intelligence to write two works which rightly questioned the sanity of the world, yet she couldn’t use that same intelligence to question her own mind?

Joining academia to get funding for research obviously contradicts her thinking about what is sane. So how can she possibly expect anyone to take her life and her work seriously if she says one thing and does the complete opposite? Unless, that is, she has admitted openly that that she did so because she lacked the strength to do otherwise.

Perhaps that’s it! Perhaps Green has admitted somewhere that she only had enough strength to partially leave the herd for a short period to write those books, and then had to surrender to it once again. Now, that would be something! But I’ve searched around, and I’ve not been able to find such a statement by her – have you Mitchell?

-
*The Human Evasion and The Fall and Decline of Science.

[Mitchell Porter]

Sue - Suppose you are a person capable of discovering things, and you find that your field of interest (and the lion's share of the resources which your society officially makes available for discovery in that field) is monopolized by wrong ideas. You have a number of options: You can try to get a seat at the table without compromising intellectually. Result: discoveries might be made. You can seek funds from outside the system. Result: discoveries might be made. Or, you can go strike a pose in the desert. Result: no discoveries will be made.

Seeking the opportunities to act that come with (say) professorial status is not the same thing as endorsing the prevailing theories. It seems that the majority of people who appreciate Celia's writings are temperamentally antinomian, which is why she goes on in her blog about having nothing in principle against respectability and social status. She is much more interested in getting on with the discovery than with criticising the status quo, and that is not facilitated by a situation of righteous poverty.

The prevailing philosophy on this forum is that the empirical is uncertain but that the logical is not, and that the sustained use of reason on the purely logical plane leads to transformative consequences, especially for the self and the emotions, classically known as enlightenment. Now Celia also draws radical psychological consequences from philosophical observations, and has lived her life accordingly. The aspect of her thought with which you should be concerned is her notion of centralised psychology and its relationship to what she calls the principle of total uncertainty. If you want to find a basis for comparison, that's where you should start.

[Faust]

Sue - Suppose you are a person capable of discovering things, and you find that your field of interest (and the lion's share of the resources which your society officially makes available for discovery in that field) is monopolized by wrong ideas. You have a number of options: You can try to get a seat at the table without compromising intellectually. Result: discoveries might be made. You can seek funds from outside the system. Result: discoveries might be made. Or, you can go strike a pose in the desert. Result: no discoveries will be made.

Seeking the opportunities to act that come with (say) professorial status is not the same thing as endorsing the prevailing theories. It seems that the majority of people who appreciate Celia's writings are temperamentally antinomian, which is why she goes on in her blog about having nothing in principle against respectability and social status. She is much more interested in getting on with the discovery than with criticising the status quo, and that is not facilitated by a situation of righteous poverty.

The prevailing philosophy on this forum is that the empirical is uncertain but that the logical is not, and that the sustained use of reason on the purely logical plane leads to transformative consequences, especially for the self and the emotions, classically known as enlightenment. Now Celia also draws radical psychological consequences from philosophical observations, and has lived her life accordingly. The aspect of her thought with which you should be concerned is her notion of centralised psychology and its relationship to what she calls the principle of total uncertainty. If you want to find a basis for comparison, that's where you should start.

Although I'm not too keen on her "principle of uncertainty" thing, that sounds like "we can never be sure of anything," I don't know if that's what she means, but I dare hope it's not, even though I think it implies it.

But you're right about her reasons for professorial status regardless of the prevailing ideologies. She realized about the prevailing ideologies AFTER she went through the mess, so that changes things. On continuing to pursue an academic career, some would like to call it, "keeping up the good fight." Unfortunately, she went at it alone and literally became a Jesus!

[keenobserver]

Have you thought of this/She grabbed onto the original idea after hearing someone mention it, not really originating in her own mind, wrote the book to score some points?
I suppose you have but may not want to say. no matter.

What original idea are you referring to? And what book? Why do you think she would do it to "score some points."? You're saying her pursuit of wisdom isn't genuine??? I'm pretty sure it is.

I think Kevin has a hard time believing her inspiration alone gave us Human Evasion. He wants to pin her down and attempt to find out how much of a fraud, if any,
she really is.

Well, will you tell me this/before software changes, One could browse, find a post to respond to, then hit some button i think Quote, sents you off to login, then off you go to respond.
Now it seems im forced to back out once i have found something to respond to, go to login, then try to find my way back to where i was. must be an easier way. dont care to login until im sure i have something to contrribute.
tanx,

Have you tried enabling automatic log-in everytime you come on the site? That way, you can just immediately post without any login troubles.

Have you tried reading what i wrote ("dont care to login until im sure i have someth....)

[Faust]

I think Kevin has a hard time believing her inspiration alone gave us Human Evasion. He wants to pin her down and attempt to find out how much of a fraud, if any,
she really is.

She was a precocious and inquisitive child, so I doubt that there's really any "fraud".

Have you tried reading what i wrote ("dont care to login until im sure i have someth....)

If you enable automatic log-in, you don't have to log-in at all at any time, whether to read or to post. So it just seems to be a faster and easier option for me, that's if you're rational, and your computer isn't shared by anyone who comes to this site.

[sue hindmarsh]

Mitchell,

The Green you described and the Green who wrote the following, can't be the same person:

- A human relationship is what happens when you know you can rely on the other person to be as dishonest as you are.

- Earning a living is regarded as moral. This is because a person who is answerable only to himself may or may not be wasting his time; an employed person is certain to be.

- The object of modern science is to make all aspects of reality equally boring, so that no one will be tempted to think about them.

- If you stand up to the human race you lose something called their "goodwill"; if you kowtow to them you gain . . . their permission to continue kowtowing.

- In the world there is nothing but prose and dishonesty.

- Women are the last people to be trusted with children. Those who have repressed their own aspirations will scarcely be tolerant of the aspirations of others.

I just find it completely bizarre for someone to write books warning others to stay clear of the insanity of this world, and then straight-afterwards jump head first in amongst it. She must have written something somewhere about this complete about face. Are you sure she never wrote something like, “I don’t possess the strength to let go of insanity and become an individual like Nietzsche and Jesus did. But I hope my books will assist others to find the strength within them to take those first steps towards a life I only ever got to glimpse – a life lived completely free.”

No?

-

[Mitchell Porter]

Sue - There is a limit to my ability to act as Celia Green's interpreter, so I will just say that personally, I do not see the contradiction. Suppose you wish to be an astronomer. You could share every sentiment expressed in those quotations, and still take time out to deal with human beings, because that is the shortest path towards being able to be an astronomer. You might spend ten years becoming a multi-millionaire, in order to buy a plot of land and build a private observatory. (Tycho Brahe comes to mind.) You might get a job at some existing observatory, and arrange your life so that social interactions are reduced to the minimum necessary to keep the job, so you can observe and think about the universe. You could do either of those things in full consciousness of the insecurity and transience of all finite arrangements, if the pursuit of astronomical knowledge still seemed like a worthwhile thing in such a state of mind (and I think it would have a better chance than most finite purposes of still appearing meaningful, since it already implies engagement with something larger than oneself or one's species).

[Faust]

Mitchell,

The Green you described and the Green who wrote the following, can't be the same person:

- A human relationship is what happens when you know you can rely on the other person to be as dishonest as you are.

- Earning a living is regarded as moral. This is because a person who is answerable only to himself may or may not be wasting his time; an employed person is certain to be.

- The object of modern science is to make all aspects of reality equally boring, so that no one will be tempted to think about them.

- If you stand up to the human race you lose something called their "goodwill"; if you kowtow to them you gain . . . their permission to continue kowtowing.

- In the world there is nothing but prose and dishonesty.

- Women are the last people to be trusted with children. Those who have repressed their own aspirations will scarcely be tolerant of the aspirations of others.

I just find it completely bizarre for someone to write books warning others to stay clear of the insanity of this world, and then straight-afterwards jump head first in amongst it. She must have written something somewhere about this complete about face. Are you sure she never wrote something like, “I don’t possess the strength to let go of insanity and become an individual like Nietzsche and Jesus did. But I hope my books will assist others to find the strength within them to take those first steps towards a life I only ever got to glimpse – a life lived completely free.”

No?

-

Most of her realizations of the insanity of the world came from her experience in academia and being kicked out in the first place. If she somehow found out what the future would hold for her, I'm sure she would change her plans.

[Dan Rowden]

Copy of a letter to an academic to whom I apply for references

I am afraid I shall have to go on putting you in the picture about my true position, as I see it. I can't prevent people from placing their own interpretations on it, but they have also had a very strong tendency to misrepresent my position. ***

I have never become identified with anything I was doing in temporary and enforced exile from a university career as anything but a means to returning to such a career, by however arduous and tedious a route, and against however much opposition. It was always perfectly clear to me what sort of a life I needed to have. This was, and is, quite independent of my ability, my opinion of my ability, and anyone else's opinion of my ability.

Even if a person with an IQ of 80 said that they absolutely needed, as a minimum requirement for their happiness and intellectual productivity, the life of a residential Fellow in a college, and that they would be suffering in agony without it, I would agree with them that they had better spend the rest of their agonised life, or as long as it took, taking degrees and doing such research as they could in the hope of getting a good enough degree, or doing some sufficiently impressive research, to be admitted by society to the sort of life which they claimed they needed to have, before they died.

However, although my need for a certain sort of life, and horror at the prospect of being deprived of it, is a psychological datum that appears quite independent of any evaluation of my ability, it may be less so than it seems, since it is quite probable that any genetically determined aptitude goes with a genetically determined drive towards circumstances in which it can be used. An aptitude with no associated inclination to use it would be of far less value in the evolutionary struggle for survival.

Be that as it may, I have been represented as having 'taken up' parapsychology, or become an 'enthusiast' for lucid dreams, etc., whereas in fact I had no freedom of choice at all, once I had been thrown out into the wilderness. (I will always remember the incredible horror of Kensington High Street when I first went to the SPR. No-one who knew me, no-one who had ever known me, or known anything about me, came to say, 'We can't let this happen to you! What can we do to help you, couldn't I let you have a free room in my house, while you take another degree and re-apply to get back into a liveable life?' Could everyone I had ever known, without exception, keep their distance and watch? Yes, they could, and I realised that I had not a friend in the world.)

When I was thrown out, even before I arrived at the SPR, I said to my father (with whom I was not really on speaking terms, but to whom I was forced to speak now, in a need so dire), 'It is only the result of a degree examination taken at far too late an age after years of bad circumstances, and the distortion of enforced 'preparation' under the auspices of people who had no sympathy with me. It proves nothing about my ability to do maths in other circumstances, or to do any other subject, or to do research. I told you long ago how everything had gone all wrong, and you never did any of the things I asked for, at least partially to rectify matters. It does not affect at all the things I need to do in life and the sort of career I need to have. I will never be doing anything except for the purpose of returning to a career in the best university. If I take a job that is useless except as a way of earning money, it will only be to finance my working to return to my real career.'

Then, when I got a job at the SPR, I said to him, 'I won't stay there any longer than I can help, of course. I don't want to go on wasting my time longer than I have to.' To which my father sneeringly replied, passing on the attitudes of the local educational establishment as he always had done, 'You, wasting your time!'

(I thought it was wicked and immoral of him to let them speak to him about me behind my back, and even more wicked and immoral of them to speak to him about me without my permission, and without getting some assurance from me that they were representing my wishes.)

Anyway, that was the state of affairs. As the decades passed in exile, I never became identified with being the sort of person who did any of the things which I was forced to do; I had always had the strongest possible aversion to doing anything which would not maximise my productivity at the sort of things which I could do better than anyone else. Become an expert on house purchase and repair, indeed! That was something other people could do; it didn't take much IQ, and the information that one had to process was so trivial and so slowly acquired and applied that having to do those things was like spending time in a sensory deprivation cell. Similarly with the production and publication of books, the management of stroppy and inefficient personnel, and the other things with which I eventually found myself forced to ruin my days.

So I have never actually become identified with being anything but a highflying academic, although I was one who was deprived of a social identity and of everything else that was necessary for a tolerable life, always knowing that I could have been happy and productive and could still become happy and productive at the drop of a hat. Only I was separated from wellbeing by money and status. Relatively little money but a lot if no-one will give you any and you have to make it all for yourself.

Status without money wouldn't do much good of course, but, as I gradually came to realise, however much money you had, the lack of socially conferred status would still be a problem. This I will try to deal with in my next letter, as this one has become long enough.

With best wishes.

Yours,

Celia

5 April 2003

[Kevin Solway]

I have never become identified with anything I was doing in temporary and enforced exile from a university career as anything but a means to returning to such a career

This seems to be saying that books like "The Human Evasion" were only written as a means to returning to an academic career.

[keenobserver]

Faust13,

"If you enable automatic log-in, you don't have to log-in at all at any time, whether to read or to post."
Worth a try, but everytime I bring it up, there is no opportunity to enable it, far as i can see.
Ill hunt around in faq, havent noticed it, never the question "welcome, would you like to enable automatic
log-in......

[Faust]

Faust13,

"If you enable automatic log-in, you don't have to log-in at all at any time, whether to read or to post."
Worth a try, but everytime I bring it up, there is no opportunity to enable it, far as i can see.
Ill hunt around in faq, havent noticed it, never the question "welcome, would you like to enable automatic
log-in......

bring what up? The option is right under where you sign-in.

[Faust]

I have never become identified with anything I was doing in temporary and enforced exile from a university career as anything but a means to returning to such a career

This seems to be saying that books like "The Human Evasion" were only written as a means to returning to an academic career.

It might be, but I hope it's not.

[keenobserver]

Faust13,

"If you enable automatic log-in, you don't have to log-in at all at any time, whether to read or to post."
Worth a try, but everytime I bring it up, there is no opportunity to enable it, far as i can see.
Ill hunt around in faq, havent noticed it, never the question "welcome, would you like to enable automatic
log-in......

bring what up? The option is right under where you sign-in.

Where I "sign-in" as you say, thats essentially identical to login'-in.
Where I sign in, is a "log In" page.
For me, there is no signing-in without login' In.
I reckon you "sign-in" from a different direction than I.
How do you begin your session?

By the way, is Green a friend of yours, or are you female?
Why does her fate and past concern you so?

[Faust]

Faust13,

"If you enable automatic log-in, you don't have to log-in at all at any time, whether to read or to post."
Worth a try, but everytime I bring it up, there is no opportunity to enable it, far as i can see.
Ill hunt around in faq, havent noticed it, never the question "welcome, would you like to enable automatic
log-in......

bring what up? The option is right under where you sign-in.

Where I "sign-in" as you say, thats essentially identical to login'-in.
Where I sign in, is a "log In" page.
For me, there is no signing-in without login' In.
I reckon you "sign-in" from a different direction than I.
How do you begin your session?

By the way, is Green a friend of yours, or are you female?
Why does her fate and past concern you so?

Yes, by signing-in I mean logging-in, under the fields where you type in your username and password, there's a check box for "keep me signed in" or something similar to that.

No I don't know her personally. It's just that if she IS right about literally being KICKED OUT or denied due to her desire to get more degrees then I'm on her side.