--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > > > These ex-TM people who spent a decade or less in the > > > TMO and then spend the rest of their lives "coming to > > > terms" with their cult "indoctrination" make me scratch > > > my head. > > > > You're not a TRUE cultist until you've spent > > at least three decades in the cult. > > What does it mean when you pronounce everyone else is > a cultist while missing that you might have issues, > yourself...
What does it mean when current cultists feel the need to portray former cultists who are honest enough with themselves to realized they were a part of a cult and who still have some lingering curiosity about those who have never reached that point as having something *wrong* with them? I mean, there is a concerted attempt on this forum to portray anyone who still finds the machinations of current-day cultists fascinating from a curiosity standpoint as having something *wrong* with us. Our curiosity doesn't mean that we're still attached to the cult or its leader or its dogma the way the current-day cultists are, merely that we find those who still feel that way curious. As I suggested before, it's sorta like going to a high school reunion and running into people for whom high school was the high point of their lives. You've got yer "popular kids" (those who became TM teachers and worked for the TMO) who were members of all the right clubs and were voted "Most likely to..." and who still identify so strongly with that image of themselves that they attempt to pretend that they are still those same people, and not the owner of a car wash in Peoria. Then you've got yer folks who never fit it even back in high school (the ones who never became TM teachers, never did a lick of work for the TMO, but feel that they deserve being treated as if they did). They were members of the Debate Club, or the National Honor Society or some other group of dweebs, and none of the popular kids ever wanted to have anything to do with them. On some level they're *still* trying to get the popular kids to accept them as their equals, which is never going to happen. Even sadder, at every high school reunion there is someone like Ravi, who never even *went* to that high school, but is so desperate for attention that he attends its reunions anyway. It's all so Romy And Michele's High School Reunion. I'm just curious, that's all. High school (the TM movement) was not that big a part of my life, and certainly not on any level that fueled attachment. But I'm still fascinated by those for whom the attachment factor (and the seemingly corollary need to praise the similarly-attached and demonize those who got over it) is as present for them now as it was back in the heyday of TM's fleeting popularity. All I do is point out some of the silliness of the TM movement, past and present. There is more than enough of this silliness so that I never lack for material. It's not the silliness *itself* that fascinates me, but the *reactions* to it by those who've seemingly never realized how much allegiance and attachment they have for the silliness, and how much anger they have towards people who do nothing but point out that it's ...uh...silly.
