--- In [email protected], ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > It's very easy to dismiss experiences you haven't > > had on the grounds that the mind can fool you and make > > patterns out of nothing. But it's not very intellectually > > honest. In fact, it sounds a lot as though that > > conclusion is your mind making a pattern that you're > > more comfortable with. > > > > I believe that there was mass hysteria in the room. It is hardly > intellectually dishonest to come to that opinion. I have read about > suggestibility. I have read about cognition. I have met highly suggestible > people. I have met people who unequivocally made cognitive errors about > experiences. I draw my opinions based upon my knowledge and experience. It > has nothing to do with comfort or discomfort. I acknowledge that these are > opinions, not fact, and thus may be wrong. I say that I have yet to be > convinced that my opinions are not correct. This hardly intellectually > dishonest. You and I can disagree without either of us being painted as > dishonest. You can disagree with me without minimizing my opinion which > happens to be different than your opinion. You are one of the few people I > have ever "met" who appears unwilling to agree to disagree. > > Your analogy to sex and orgasm was interesting. Of course, sexual response > is mostly in the head. So to speak. > Ruth, your and Curtis' responses to Judy are grounded, eminently sane and much more patient than I would ever be with her. I find her cartoonishly full of herself.
It will be (sort of) interesting to see if she is capable of acknowledging a flaw, any problem at all, in her point of view here. Scratch that, it won't be that interesting. Nothing about her is. But I give you both huge kudos for your patience and understanding with this woman. You two are much better advertisements for the goals of TM in the way you conduct yourselves than Judy could ever dream of.
