--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, I don't think this covers the comparison with cocaine > > > > and gambling. That goes beyond just being honest about your > > > > own POV. > > > > > > The reward centers of our brains do not make the value > > > judgements about what triggers the endorphins. > > > > Duh. Right, you do that. > > My point is that it happens on another level of the brain. > You were accusing me of making a comparison between TM and > drugs and gambling but it was on the wrong brain functioning > level. I am talking about an area of the brain where they > are more similar in effect.
And I'm talking about word choice. But you knew that. > > > My point concerns the content free reward system itself. > > > And since I spent a lot of time being fulltime I saw a > > > lot of people whose lives were a wreck from their fixation > > > on meditation. Later after I got out I spent time with > > > families who had been torn apart by their kids over- > > > involvement and inability to support themselves. So the > > > comparisons with other activities that can incapacitate > > > people due to an uncontrollable urge like for rounding > > > courses is not without some basis in my experience. > > > > I didn't say it never happened. Of course it does. But I > > don't believe--I'd have to be shown hard evidence to the > > contrary--that it's common among TMers generally. > > Like I said , what is most common among TMers is that they > quit TM and I know this for a fact. Non sequitur, since we're talking about people who practice TM. > > You said it yourself: you were/are the type of person who > > does get addicted, and you chose to spend time in an > > environment that catered to that addiction, with others > > who were likely to be vulnerable to it as well. > > I was the type of person who had really charming experiences > in meditation. It was the goal of the practice to have the > experiences I was having. That must have been one of the "secret teachings" not divulged to the hoi polloi. > In my experience the more charming, the more addictive. > But this is content free positive experience divorced from > achievement. I am calling into question the whole goal of > the yoga systems including TM. Well, including TM for those privy to the "secret teachings," but not including TM for the ordinary TMer, who, in my experience, was told most emphatically that the value of TM was one's experience in activity, not one's experience during meditation. > > I think it behooves you to make this very clear when you > > deliver your POV, especially when you're talking to someone > > who is unlikely to be able to figure it out on his or her > > own. > > So you think Emily was confused that I am always > expressing my own POV when I post here? I'll give her > a bit more credit. Oh, please, Curtis, you don't limit yourself to your own POV here, including in this exchange. Just for one example, above you write, "It was the goal of the practice to have the experiences I was having." And you refer to what you're questioning as "the whole goal of the yoga systems including TM." Those are statements made as if of established fact. And they may *be* established fact. My point is that you make factual statements as well as POV statements, but some of your POV statements are indistinguishable from your factual statements. > > This is not a matter of PR. This is a matter of doing > > one's best not to mislead people. > > And how many times in a personal opinion post on an opinion > forum should I make this disclaimer to avoid being accused > of misleading people? > Shouldn't you be doing this too? Yes, we all should. Again, though, my point is that when you make a post that includes factual statements and POV statements *and* statements made as if they were factual that are really POV statements, readers can easily be confused, especially if they aren't practitioners. > Hear ye hear ye, from now on, if you see any post of mine > here on FFL, it represents my own POV on any topic. > > I'll assume that this covers it once and for all. Let's see what happens in your future posts, shall we?
