--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > -- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: <snip> > > > > > If a person was able to exert power over the environment > > > > > using their mind only in a field effect it would be special. > > > > > The terms used for such people designate them as such like > > > > > the terms saint or his holiness. > > > > > > > > You use it in the Church Lady sense, with a sneer. And it's > > > > a non sequitur in the context of inner healing anyway. > > > > > > Not always. > > > > To "exert power over the environment using their mind > > only in a field effect" is a whole 'nother thing than > > inner healing. > > Since you are not proposing how this might be achieved I am > still left in the dark.
And the dishonesty creeps in further as we go along. Inner healing is inner healing; exerting power over the environment is exerting power over the environment. They're obviously not the same thing, and you obviously don't need any specifics from me to realize this. There are (as I've already said several times) any number of approaches to inner healing for folks to choose from according to their predilections. What I'm proposing, to spell out what I shouldn't need to spell out, is that everybody recognize they're in need of inner healing, pick an approach, and start working with it. <snip> > > > > > > > > I didn't characterize Ravi's approach as "magical." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know that, > > > > > > > > > > > > Then why did you say it was what I had "pointed out"? > > > > > > > > > > This is a dll in your responses. > > > > > > > > What's a "dll"? > > > > > > Dynamic link library. The sub programs that run your > > > computer called up for basic functions in other programs > > > like opening a file. In this case it is analogous for > > > using a type of thinking which is formalistic. > > > > You mean formalistic in terms of what words mean when > > arranged in certain patterns? E.g., "As Judy pointed out, > > yada yada yada," when I didn't point out yada yada yada > > at all, it's "formalistic" of me to object? You never > > object to somebody else's misconstrual of your words > > because you virtuously lack that dll? > > Yes, you are correct, I virtuously lack that dll. Says Curtis, a couple paragraphs down: "You are mischaracterizing what I said." The sophist is coming on strong now. <snip> > > > > First, I disagree with your description of what Ravi said. > > > > Second, I'm not defending Ravi so much as criticizing you. > > > > Third, if it were clear from Ravi's past posts that he wasn't > > > > a sexist, I might point out that the language was problematic, > > > > but I wouldn't, you know, attack him for being a sexist pig. > > > > > > And I didn't either, you are mischaracterizing what I said. > > > > Jeez, Curtis, you've *admitted* you were characterizing > > him as racist. > > No. But I have already explained the distinction, you > are just fucking with me here. You said you didn't care whether he was racist. I said you believed he was, and you offered no denial. <snip> > > > And you are missing my point that the civil rights agenda > > > transformed opportunity for black people. > > > > Then how come the projects are overrun with crime? Do > > you see where this line of argument is taking you? > > You mean that it didn't immediately cure all poverty problems > in a few generations? It did transform opportunity but it > isn't perfect. It didn't eliminate racial prejudice it gave > a legal remedy for the cases that make it to court. But > integration is working on the generations who have shared > schools. It gets better with each generation. Poverty is > poverty. The same problems with drugs and crime exist in > Appalachia. And as long as we are giving much higher > sentencing for the form of cocaine, crack verses powder, drug > laws continue to be racially skewed. This is all pretty much a non sequitur. What you're describing sure isn't "transformed opportunity for black people." > > > It wasn't a comfortable white middle-class solution to > > > integrate, and provide legal remedy for discrimination in > > > employment. > > > > But having gone through the discomfort of integration > > and no longer being able to discriminate, white middle- > > class folks think they've done all that can reasonably > > be expected of them. You just said it "transformed > > opportunity for black people." That's the kind of > > complacency I'm talking about. > > I can't imagine who would be idiotic enough to believe that > having some legal protection has eliminated discrimination. Right. But, as I said, white middle-class folks think they've done all that can reasonably be expected of them. That it hasn't "transformed opportunity" is attributed to "the human condition." Nothing to be done about it, that's just the way it is. > And I don't know who it is you believe is being complacent, > but it isn't me. Anybody who can say opportunity has been transformed for black people is complacent by definition. <snip> > > > > > I am not a "pain projecting liberal" blah blah blah. > > > > > > > > I don't think you have a very clear idea what he means > > > > by this. I think you resist exploring the idea because > > > > the thought that you might have some inner pain you > > > > haven't dealt with (like everybody else does) scares the > > > > piss out of you. > > > > > > When someone uses this concept as if it is the intellectual > > > source for my arguments that say, I don't' believe Maharishi > > > is correct in his thoery of human consciousness it is being > > > used as an ad hominem diversion from the discussion. > > > > That isn't how I use it. The first time I mentioned > > it, you used it as a diversion from the discussion. > > Remember? The discussion was about whether TM shouldn't > > be taught in schools because it was purportedly > > religious. As an aside, I brought up the possibility of > > residual resentment because your and others' arguments > > to that effect seemed to me to be so feeble > > intellectually, and yet you were so vehement about them. > > I wasn't suggesting the resentment was the source of > > your intellectual arguments but rather that it was > > getting in the way of your ability to see the situation > > clearly. > > OK, you are welcome to this opinion. I'm sure I have some > version of it about your biases in thinking too. As I went on to say: > > Again, Curtis, we all have a tendency to do that.> > > So why mention it as if I am a special case in the context > of an argument? I didn't, actually. I mentioned it as characteristic of the TM critics who were arguing TM was religious and therefore shouldn't be taught in schools. That included but wasn't limited to you. But more significantly, as I'm sure you're capable of figuring out, people have residual resentments about *different things*. I don't have residual resentment about my TM experience. I have 'em about other things that we didn't happen to be talking about. If you want to claim that's making you a "special case," well, go ahead, you're really on a roll with the sophistry. > My opinion about TM being religious has nothing to do with > resentment, it has to do with my experience of its religious > nature. Again--as I said above--in my opinion, your arguments to that effect in that specific context, teaching TM in schools a la David Lynch, were remarkably shaky. That suggests to me a strong emotional component having to do with teaching kids TM. The allegedly religious component, given the way the Lynch program is doing the teaching, didn't adequately justify your vehement opposition. > But > > if we refuse to recognize the resentment or whatever > > the emotion is, it's likely to distort our intellectual > > take without our realizing it. And because the emotion > > is so powerful, we'll go to great lengths to cobble > > together intellectual arguments to defend it. Typically > > they're not very good arguments because we aren't > > recognizing what's fueling them. > > You probably aren't gunna get much traction with this > uninvited psycho-analysis. I suspect we all prefer to do > this on our own or with people who we believe have our > best interest in mind. Do what? I'm just explaining how I see it. Take it or leave it; but I'm going to put it out there either way. > > So that's what I was suggesting on the basis of my > > observations. It wasn't a diversion, because I'd been > > addressing the arguments all along. It was just an > > aside, if anything a plea for you to take account of > > something you hadn't been considering and go on from > > there. > > > > But you *reacted* to that aside very negatively, as if > > it were a terrible insult, as if you couldn't possibly > > have any residual resentment about your TM experience. > > That just seems to me wildly unlikely. What seems to me > > *very* likely is that my observation came too close to > > some discomfort that you didn't want to have to > > acknowledge to yourself. > > Yeah, when DID I stop beating my wife. Oh I never did, > sounds like denial to me... Most people wouldn't fly off the handle at the suggestion, even if they disagreed with it. > This version of mind-fuckery just isn't gunna fly Judy. > It is a double bind vague accusation and really has not > place in a sincere discussion. It is a tactic. Bullshit. I was trying to figure out why your arguments were so weak. > You got a rise out of me when you used it so good for you. > But shifting the discussion from content to me personally > is not gunna advance any discussion with me. It just > means you have run out of ideas on the content. Yeah, except I haven't, and I continue to address your points. The "shifting the discussion" and "run out of ideas" lines are what aren't gonna fly. <snip> > > The point I'm making is that if activists are themselves > > in pain, their achievements are likely to be flawed and > > partial and superficial, because their empathy for the > > folks they're trying to help isn't "pure"; it's all > > mixed up with their own pain. > > I don't believe this. People do all sorts of good while > in pain for one reason or another. Of course they do. But how much *more* good could they do if they weren't projecting their own pain? This isn't a battle of absolutes, no good versus all good. It's relative. <snip> > > The solution would begin with recognition of this dynamic. > > As I said, there are many possible ways to heal inner > > pain, but if it isn't recognized, one isn't going to take > > advantage of them. > > I don't believe the solutions to poverty have anything to > do with this. You are imagining some kind of > hyper-emotionalism getting in the way of good thinking or > effectively focusing emotions. No, it's more subtle than that. Don't know where you got "hyper-emotionalism." I never suggested that and didn't have anything like that in mind. > > > At least you now have copped to inner pain being pejorative, > > > "screwed up". Your attempt to paint it as just something we > > > all have that I deny was getting tiresome. > > > > It *is* something we all, or the vast majority of us, have. > > We're all screwed up, some of us more than others. I don't > > know what "pejorative" would mean in this context, or why > > you'd think I had "copped" to anything. "Screwed up" is > > just a colloquial term for inner pain. > > > > > So when you use the term in a discussion with me in the > > > future I will just substitute the term "screwed up" and > > > call you on your ad hominem attack. > > > > Sure, because you don't want to acknowledge being even > > a little bit screwed up. Mr. Wonderful. > > This is an unpleasant fantasy of yours in contradiction > with everything I have written here. So now you're acknowledging you're at least a little bit screwed up? > To be precise, I don't need to hear you telling me I am > screwed up. "Residual resentment" was the phrase I used. Some degree of inner pain. As I explained, "screwed up" is just a colloquial synonym. Again, most people wouldn't react so strongly to the idea that they had residual resentment or some degree of inner pain. > I believe your motives are unkind. I believe the suggestion that you have some residual resentment regarding your TM experience makes you quite uncomfortable, and you react by feeling I'm being unkind to make you so uncomfortable. If you were OK with the idea that you might have residual resentment, that suggestion wouldn't seem unkind (even if you didn't agree with it in that particular context). > > > > > Who is projecting pain? He claims I am somehow? It is a > > > > > muddled concept at best. > > > > > > > > Why don't you ask him to explain it? > > > > > > Because I don't actually care. He has been using it as a > > > term of derision for me mixing it up with me being Buddhist > > > and all sorts of nonsense. I'm pretty sure it is a murky > > > concept for him filed under "bad things". > > > > You care enough to have challenged him on it. You care > > a whole lot when someone attributes to you what you take > > to be "bad things." But you find something to attack > > them about that carefully avoids clarifying what it is > > they're saying. > > I cared enough to write my opinion about it. We both knew > Ravi was not going to respond in detail which is probably > why you jumped in for him. I didn't know that, and that isn't why I spoke up. I already explained why I did. <snip> > > > The "cause" of complex human problems in an ultimate sense > > > may not be something we can know. > > > > Guaranteed we can't know if we just brush it off as > > "the human condition." Oh, well, can't be helped. That's > > just the way poor people are, they're going to turn to > > crime no matter what we try to do for them. See what I > > mean about where this line of argument leads? > > That doesn't describe my POV. But I do acknowledge that > poverty has consequences. It takes generations to help > a community move from poverty to the middle class. I am > right on the battle lines in inner city schools seeing > the progress and problems. So it can be helped but not > instantly. It may be one kid out of a whole class who > can make the jump. Right, the exceptions. It shouldn't be that limited. (Not your fault personally; I mean in general.) > > > I don't know if he needed any inner healing work or what > > > you mean by that term. > > > > "Plenty of things you could challenge about the guy," you > > said. Such as what? You think his catting around was > > just fine? You said Gandhi and Mother Teresa had "creepy > > personal lives." Sounds to me like a need for inner > > healing work. > > I don't know if alpha males who cat around need inner > healing or not. I know that is the accepted political > rescue theater of the day. But for me these are not > relevant to how I view his achievements. What are the things you could challenge about the guy? > If he was a marriage counselor I would view it differently. > But I don't dismiss the work he did accomplish because > there are still poor black people today. That is a > ridiculous bar. Again, this is not about absolutes. There are still *too many* poor black people today. <snip> > > > > > > > I gave a reasoned argument for my POV. Summing it > > > > > > > up as if it was a knee-jerk reaction is an inaccurate > > > > > > > characterization. > > > > > > > > > > > > I stand by the characterization. You gave a reasoned > > > > > > argument for a knee-jerk reaction. "Rationalization" is > > > > > > another word for it. > > > > > > > > > > Actually neurologically, this is how it always is for all > > > > > of us. It is how the brain operates. > > > > > > > > Fine, then you acknowledge "knee-jerk reaction" was a fully > > > > accurate characterization. > > > > > > Not in the way you used it. It was just a put down. > > > > Then you don't get to use "this is how it always is for > > all of us." Make up your mind. > > Context. Exactly. "This is how it always is..." is the wrong context for this exchange. <snip> > > It's a valid question, Curtis. Can problems be solved > > on the level of the problem? > > I don't believe this phrase is very useful. I mean if > someone has has financial problems money works really well. > If they have a problem with health, medical care, on the > level of the problem is needed. This is one of those > Maharishi phrases that makes it seam like his panacea claims > have more substance than they do. Sure it would be great if > everyone was smarter. You're aware it wasn't a phrase MMY invented, right? It's not a concept unique to TM by any means; it's very common. Usually it's used as MMY used it, to refer to large-scale problems, not individual problems. Do you combat the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by developing ever-stronger antibiotics, or do you try to limit the use of antibiotics so resistance doesn't have a chance to emerge? That's an example of not addressing a problem on the level of the problem. > > > > If what you're calling a stereotype was accurate in terms > > > > of his experience working in the projects, then it wasn't > > > > really a stereotype, it was a first-hand description. It > > > > would be a stereotype if I were to use it without ever > > > > having had the experience of working in the projects. > > > > > > So if any of us have ever met a black pimp or drug dealer > > > we can use it as a way of describing black society whenever > > > the topic is raised? And if I have ever met a woman who > > > has a medical condition which makes her time of the month > > > especially difficult, which makes her grumpy for a week > > > every month, I can use the phrase "on the rag" whenever I > > > want to sum up how women are? I had no idea you were so > > > open minded about how stereotypical language is used. > > > > Big fat straw man, Curtis. Out come the sophist tricks, as > > per usual with you. I'll assume you have no legitimate > > argument to make about the difference between a negative > > stereotype and a description based on firsthand > > experience. > > I made, it, you didn't buy it. OK. But it was no trick. Yes, it was a straw man. Nobody was using experience with a single person to describe a whole culture. <snip> > > One more time: It isn't just *your* inner life. But > > what's unflattering is not the observation that you > > have inner pain, it's your unwillingness to acknowledge > > that you, like all or most of the rest of us, have inner > > pain to deal with. > > And it is your overemphasis on how "inner pain" whatever > that might be that is where I disagree. You, like Maharishi, > overemphasize it. I don't share that model. Obviously. But instead of simply making that point to Ravi, you structured your response so as to portray him as a racist--my original objection, if you'll recall. <snip> > Ravi's solution was to get "enlightened". He hasn't made > clear how that might come about of how his enlightenment > translates into fewer black bothers selling their sisters > into prostitution in the ghetto when they are not selling > drugs or shooting each other. I hope you can jump in if > he doesn't respond. > > Oh wait, that is a given, sorry. I guess you've forgotten what I've said several times: I don't agree with Ravi that it should be all about inner healing with no outer action. It's interesting to me how many times I have to repeat myself in a discussion with you. So often you just ignore what you don't want to hear.
