--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > I never said or suggested that Curtis's > challenges were "mean-spirited." Barry made > that up (more "creative thinking"). I don't > believe that. I do think they may be colored > by residual resentment of which he's most > likely not even aware.
Judy, I find this not only insulting, but unworthy of an otherwise excellent conversation about our different POVs on this subject. It is a version of ad hominem and has no place in our discussion. First of all "colored by residual resentment" is not an intellectual point. It is a psychological putdown in the form of, "you are being irrational because you harbor a negitive emotional state." This has no reference to the specific points I am making which are intellectual in nature. It is what you do when you have run out of specific ammo in a discussion, and this has been a trend as long as I have had these discussions with you. Eventually you have to make a personal comment about me being flawed psychologically because I continue to disagree with you about a topic. Your "residual resentment" theory ignores everything I told you about my TM experiences and substitutes a projection on your own imagination. I don't have to resent Maharishi in my concluding that he is wrong. I don't have to resent his higher states model because I have concluded that he is making a big deal out of nothing. And it doesn't take resentment to see that singing a Hindu puja is religious and doesn't belong in schools. I am disappointed in you Judy for being unable to continue a discussion of ideas without trying to resort to this cheap shot in the end. I deserve better because I don't take these personal shots at you, I stay on topic and discuss where our ideas differ. I am no more flawed by hidden negitive emotions than you are. In the context of the interesting intellectual discussion we were having, I have a very conscious resentment for your pulling that bullshit on me. So far your argument about why TM could be taught in schools without any concern for its being a religion can be summarized in these points: Kids wont understand the religious meaning of the puja so it isn't religious. Even though the kids will be participating in a Hindu puja in the only way anyone in that religion ever does, by witnessing the priest give the offerings they brought, it is not religious because kids wont understand it. There isn't TOO much religious content in the teaching of meditation and it is less than the now defunct 33 lesson SCI course so it shouldn't matter. Judy doesn't think of Maharishi's ideas in a religious way so they wont be religious for the students learning. (They will all become idealist philosophers no doubt.) Do I have that about right? The good news is that outside our discussion our opinions don't mean anything. We are not deciding this. I hope whatever school system that considers this program does their homework. And unlike you, I believe they can come to an informed decision pretty quickly once they have the facts. I think a translation of the puja should be enough. > > Since this is my last post for the week, I'm going > to kill three of Barry's sad little birds with one > stone: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > When someone who was clearly intelligent once > > throws away all semblance of intelligence to > > play cult apologist, that to me is a valuable > > "yardstick" of how far gone they are into being > > a cultist. > > Notice a couple of things here. > > First, neither Barry nor Vaj have managed to > address any of the points I've been making to > Curtis. Instead, they content themselves with > ad hominem (which is, of course, exactly what > they always accuse the "apologists" of doing). > > Second, as far as they're concerned, no > alternative view to theirs is permissible, no > matter how thoughtfully reasoned, and regardless > of their inability to address that reasoning. > > No "thinking for oneself" is allowed in their > world. If one dares to hold a different view > from the one they have dictated, that > automatically makes one a "cult apologist." > > That's "creative thinking" for ya. > > > THAT is the issue I've been seeing in Judy in > > this thread. The challenges she sees to her cult > > believership in the TM Is Not A Religion Religion > > are not JUST intellectual challenges. They are > > meanspirited challenges, challenges made with > > evil intent, as a kind of personal "attack." > > Barry does a little more "creative thinking" so > as to miss my point. > > As I said earlier, it seems to me that the > arguments against teaching TM (minus SCI) in > schools are so exaggerated and artificial, so > fundamentally unreasonable, that there has to > be something else behind them, conscious or > otherwise. It's not the disagreement per se > but the quality of the arguments, their > mountain-out-of-a-molehill character. > > I never said or suggested that Curtis's > challenges were "mean-spirited." Barry made > that up (more "creative thinking"). I don't > believe that. I do think they may be colored > by residual resentment of which he's most > likely not even aware. > > Knapp's challenges, in contrast, *are* mean- > spirited, fueled by a conscious desire to see > the TMO defeated (and in the process to enhance > his counseling practice). > > Finally, notice that while (falsely) suggesting > that I can't see that challenges to my take on > TM are intellectually based, Barry refuses to > see my views as intellectually based; as far > as he's concerned, they're just "cult > believership." > > "Creative thinking," big-time. > > And here's some more: > > <snip> > > Next she's going to be claiming that people who > > disagree with her are making Death Threats against > > her. That would be the logical next step. > > Yeah, that was all about TM, wasn't it, Barry? > > Are there no limits to Barry's "creativity"? > > From another post: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > John Knapp's "ugly comment" -- > > > "I'd sure be more comfortable if researchers would > > > stick to experimenting on monkeys and leave the kids > > > alone." > > > > John Knapp is threatening the lives of monkeys! > > > > Burn him at the stake! > > > > :-) > > > > I just love it when Judy *demonstrates* her > > Bad Intent by demonstrating her ability to > > read Bad Intent into anything she reads. > > > > Even the *promoters* of the teach-kids-to- > > meditate initiative refer to it as an exper- > > iment. But when John Knapp does the same > > thing, that is somehow revealing of his > > "ugly comment" and his "mask slipping." > > Do we all really think Barry is *this* stupid? > > Or do we think he's doing some of his famous > "creative writing" because he believes *you* are > all stupid? > > Who are the "monkeys" John was referring to > that TM researchers should experiment on rather > than kids? > > And from yet another post: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > I have > > a very high "failure rate" when trying to > > order from Amazon or use their "Look inside > > this book" feature. So trying to sell me > > better "up time" just isn't going to work. > > Funny, I order from Amazon and use its "Look > inside" feature all the time, and I've never > had any problems. > > It appears that Barry is technically > incompetent and just can't figure out how to > use either the ordering system or the "Look > inside" feature. So he blames it on Amazon's > software. > > <snigger> > > Over and out... > > Oh, wait, one more thing, this one nonsnarky: > > I don't know why it hasn't occurred to me > before, but I'd genuinely like to hear from Barry > as to how he viewed the purportedly religious > nature of TM when he was with the TMO. He's made > it clear how allergic he is to any kind of > religious thinking these days, and as his comments > to Vaj indicate, he's completely convinced TM is > a religion. > > So was he inclined to religious belief when he > was a TM teacher but has since lost that > inclination? Or did he feel about religion then > the way he feels now, and simply found a way not > to let the religious component bother him? Or was > he not even *aware* of the religious component at > the time? >
