--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > I guess the same is true for discussions here on FFL, the > > more I think about it ... > > See? That's why it's more fun to chat with you than > with those who claim to be all rational and all. You > actually "get" things. :-) > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > http://www.cracked.com/article_20223_5-bizarre-factors-that-secretly-influence-your-opinions.html > > > > "Well, when you're forced to think through or express why > > you like something, you're immediately biased toward > > opinions that you can actually explain or verbalize. > > In other words, you may taste five jams and decide that > > No. 4 just tasted better, because in that moment your > > senses were taking in a thousand different factors you > > weren't consciously thinking about. But when pressured > > to actually explain in detail which one you liked best, > > you're looking for easily quantifiable things -- suddenly > > you're talking about how No. 2 had more berries, or how > > No. 1 had better color. In reality, neither of those > > things actually affected your enjoyment. You're just > > trying to make it sound like you made your decision > > based on an easily explainable chain of logic when in > > reality your tongue had it right all along." > > When it comes to cults, what's fascinating is that > this tendency to believe in what we can explain or > verbalize can be "pre-loaded," as a form of mind > control. For example, if someone were told, "We can > teach you to FLY, if you just pay us several thousand > dollars," most people would roll their eyes and know > instantly that they were dealing with a charlatan. > > But if you "pre-loaded" that claim with a bunch of > bogus bullshit spouted by a supposed scientist, > giving them pseudo-rational reasons for how or why > they could fly, or a supposed "holy man," giving them > equally BS "Vedic" reasons for how or why they could > fly, they'll tend to plunk their money down for the > TM-Sidhi course. In this case, the more the obvious > insane idea is explained and verbalized *TO* them, > the more it convinces their brains that it *isn't* > an insane idea.
I think I never really bought into the pseudo science rationale. I was always doubtful about the scientific research, even upon starting TM. If it wouldn't have been for having had good experiences with TM, I wouldn't have started the sidhis. The rationale was, TM worked, so if TM worked well enough with me, this must work as well. The first time I heard of siddhis, it was through rumors, word of mouth, people who have been to a six month course. It was a sort of 'privileged knowledge' acquired because I was at a place where this knowledge/rumors were shared. But what comes to my mind is this, that all experiences one had in the TM time, where somehow attributed to TM. In the same way that Maharishi once said, we claim everything positive happening in the world for us, in the same way, any good experience a person may have had during the TM time, was automatically assumed to happen BECAUSE OF TM. Any good experience you may have had in meditation, was because of TM, it was NAMED, and it wasn't just any meditation, it was TM, it had to be TM specific. This NAMING is really what gets people hooked I think, you cannot think of anything positive anymore that is not TM. It's a sort of anchoring and mind-manipulation. I sometimes have to think what an old TM friend, who was out of the movement asked me at that time. He was deep into TM at a time, like myself. He said that a clairvoyant had told him that he has an implant, a sort of a psychic device, from his TM time, when he became a teacher. He asked me about my opinion, I said I didn't believe in such things really, I'm against these woo woo devices, but whenever this discussion here comes up, I admit, I find myself thinking there might be something to it. Well, it's probably irrational, but then it really shows how conditioning works. > BTW, not mentioned in the original Cracked article > but IMO related to it is a recent study showing how > we use *nostalgia* to make ourselves feel warmer. > Clinical trials indicated that when people were > placed in cold rooms and then asked to remember > favorite songs from the past, or recollect favorite > positive memories from the past, they felt warmer, > and thus more comfortable. I only have to go back one week in memory, when I was in India swimming in the Bay of Bengal.. > I tend to think that this is why, when criticisms > of TM or Maharishi come up here and people have > their *un*comfortable cognitive dissonance buttons > pushed, what often follows is a nostalgia-fest. > They start talking about the Beatles, or some > course they went on 20 years ago, or even the > "Vedic era" that never existed but which they've > been told was So Much Better Than Now. IMO, all > of this is an unconscious attempt to "warm" them- > selves by taking the chill off of their cognitive > dissonance. >
