--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ > > > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > I see what you are saying and I understand the distress > > > > someone might feel when discussing bad stuff in their life > > > > and thinking they may leave therapy as a result. So yes, > > > > sometimes saying something forbidden out loud can be a > > > > positive step. But it isn't always good to revisit the > > > > bad stuff. The bad feelings may be reinforced. > > > > > > That's why the TM version of the process, if it's > > > valid, might have a big advantage over therapy. > > > MMY disliked the idea of psychotherapy for exactly > > > the reason you stated (albeit he certainly had no > > > expert knowledge thereof). > > > > I think of therapy as work, as an action plan to learn to > > ways to identify bad thinking patters and learning coping > > strategies to help deal with problematic symptoms as they > > arise. Homework is often required. Practicing relaxation > > may be part of the homework if you suffer from anxiety. > > What MMY may have learned about therapy may have been based > > on therapies that have been discredited or do not work. > > Taking a psychotic person and asking them to talk about their > > problems doesn't make any sense and a psychotic break has > > nothing good happening, only bad. Instead, they need Risperdal. > > My guess is that he was thinking of whatever he'd > heard or learned about Freudian-type psychoanalysis, > which certainly isn't as popular as it used to be, > but I'm not sure one could say it's been "discredited." > Some of its ideas surely have been, but not all, and > not necessarily the overall approach. > > I don't think I've ever heard anybody suggest, in any > context, "taking a psychotic person and asking them to > talk about their problems" as a valid form of therapy, > at least not prior to the psychosis being controlled > by medication, so I'm not sure where that came from.
It was just part of the discussion of therapies that do not work for some people, but once were thought of as helpful. I was again reinforcing the idea that "something good is happening" may not be the case when people are feeling strong emotions. We are, and it is primarily my doing as I explore my thoughts, moving around several different topics: What is unstressing? What are similar theories to unstressing? Where did MMY's ideas about unstressing come from? Where did his ideas about therapy come from? What is therapy? What place does therapy and medical intervention have in hard core TM? > > > One thing I originally believed about TM was that it was > > a partner with science, not an opponent. If there was a > > good medical therapy for a medical problem, you used it. > > If there was a psychological problem, and there is a good > > therapy, you should use that as well. Over the years it > > became apparent to me that TM was more in opposition to > > science than I originally thought. > > Yeah, I don't think you can base that case on MMY's > dislike of psychotherapy, or even include it in such > a case (and it's a little odd that you'd do that when > you've just expressed a dislike for exactly those > features of psychotherapy that MMY was opposed to!). And it is a little odd that emotions expressed in therapy may be considered analogous to the TM idea of unstressing as MMY didn't think much of therapy. ;-) MMY seemed to paint psychotherapy with a pretty broad brush. Also, I think many TMers have the feeling that TM cures ills, especially psychological ills. After all, you did suggest "That's why the TM version of the process, if it'svalid, might have a big advantage over therapy." And others here have mentioned people being in a bad state but getting better while doing TM. Of course, we don't know cause and effect. On big reason for improvement of psychological problems is simply the passage of time. He also was pretty secretive about medical issues concerning himself. This probably did not help the TM rumor mill where some seemed close to believing he was immortal and did not suffer from ordinary human illnesses. How many of you out there know TB's who think that meditation will cure medical problems like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease? If MMY was more upfront about his illnesses, this kind of magical thinking wouldn't be happening. > > To make your case, you'd need to show that MMY was > opposed to aspects of science that have unequivocally > been demonstrated to be beneficial. But what is my case? My case simply is that TM is more in opposition to science than I originally thought. To be clear, I mean TM as MMY, the techniques, and everything else promoted by MMY and the TMO. The dislike of psychotherapy is one example. I think the supplement stuff is not scientifically supported. I think the east facing homes have no evidence as promoting good health. I think the astrology is not scientifically supported. I think the Maharishi Effect is not scientifically supported. So, rather than me having to prove MMY opposed science shown to be unequivocally beneficial, I think the TMO needs to prove at least some truth behind its claims. It isn't one thing, or one idea. It is the bucket. The years have taken the TMO further and further away from science. > > With regard to all of this, the TMO tended to magnify > things MMY said and turn them into absolutes that > then became embedded in the culture in ways that MMY > may never have intended. Yes, it seems like that could be the case. > > This is not to give MMY blanket exoneration from > anti-scientific ideas, it's just a caveat that things > may not be quite so cut-and-dried. I see very little as cut and dried. Just exploring here. I know your role in part on this forum is to provide a reasoned rationale for some TM theories that seem bizarre on the surface. I appreciate that. >
