--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > This post has some interesting insight. I think > > Judy's description of her own motives seem accurate. > > I know she also has a deep emotional investment in > > Maharishi's world view, > > Not his "world view" but his teaching on the nature > and mechanics of consciousness (and it's much less > "emotional" than intellectual and experiential).
> I *disagree* with a great deal of his world view > (political, social, economic, behavioral, etc.). I understand the focus of what you agree with in his teaching and where you draw your lines. As far as how emotionally invested your are we probably disagree, but who cares right? > > <snip> > > Vaj really really believes in his POV about the > > movement. (I do with my own too.) He sincerely > > believes in the value of spiritual practices just > > as Judy does, from his own experience and > > interpretation of them. So both of you are deeply > > committed for good reasons. The problem is that > > they are in direct contradiction. > > There's one *huge* difference you're missing: I > don't attack or belittle Vaj for his spiritual > beliefs and practices or criticize his teachers. No your focus is more personal. I don't understand why you think this is an improvement. You feel justified but I often feel you are reading in too much like with the "kids" comment. It was over the top as it was since I don't know of any case where he was accused of banging kids so it didn't need the spin that he was insinuating gay pedophilia. You had enough of a case against the statement already IMO. > > I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge this, > Curtis. I understand that you'd like to equate Vaj > and me in terms of our behavior so you can do your > Dr. Phil number, but I really doubt Dr. Phil would > overlook such a gaping discrepancy. When he is critical of Maharishi and you are critical of him personally I can't really see your side Judy. You can argue about when and where you do this, but this is part of your posting style. I know you feel justified when you do it but is comes off as ad hominemish. I don't expect you to agree with this and if it helps you often get a dose of this from Vaj and others as well. > > If Vaj were simply touting his own beliefs, I > would have little to say to him. He's entitled to > them, as I am to mine. This is true in your interactions with me. > > I was going to ask you as well to acknowledge that > Barry quite deliberately misrepresented my post, > as I pointed out in my reply to him, but I see > you've decided not to risk your relationship with > him by correcting what he wrote and have instead > done a 180 on what you said in the post I'm > responding to. Asking me to do this is really missing the whole point of my original post isn't it? This is the aspect of the interactions I was arguing against. My relationship with you and Vaj and Barry is not so delicate that we can't disagree. Finding places where we mis-represent each other is exhausting. I have enough trouble keeping up with my own misrepresentations of people's posts! My response was not a 180 but my interest in the topic has become more about me and my own motives. What I wrote in the beginning has sparked a meta discussion on how we communicate here and that has an entertainment value for me. > > You refer to your "blinders"--I gather they're what > has allowed you to miss the irony of Barry's > characterizations of my behavior and motives given > his own long history of "personal invective and > personal abuse of others," especially when you add > in the component of the constant dishonesty in which > that invective and abuse is couched (his post in > question being an excellent example). ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ didn't you understand my POV in my post at all? > > I'm sorry to say none of this surprises me. That's just being mean. It is unfriendly spin slipped into a good discussion. Better put my blinders on again. >
