Thank you Barry, I appreciate it, MJ is surely nodding his head as he reads
this - unfortunately his hands err fingers tied at 50 posts. I called them
critics - but no, I should have called them cultists - as you rightly point
out. These cultists - Judy, Share, feste, Steve better watch out. MJ will
come out with a fury that will be devastating. 30 anti-TM posts in the
first day, with the same consistent cluelessness, retardedness that will
have them breaking in to a cold sweat, which will be followed by 20 more
random clueless, retarded responses to these cultists in the second day.
You & I, I am sure will then step up to keep his message alive. Thanks
Barry.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:17 PM, turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Following up on this, because I suspect that one or
> more of the cultists will try to pretend that they
> aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to
> make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist
> is about the "trigger" that sets them off.
>
> It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just
> how they interpret criticism of the organization
> or group they pathologically over-identify with.
>
> If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief
> or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if
> it were an "attack" on you personally, then what
> you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to
> that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self-
> knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end.
> Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new
> round of "shoot the messenger" because someone
> criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior
> of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior
> mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist.
>
> Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they
> hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist,
> knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can
> recognize that human beings can hold different opinions
> about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't.
> They feel compelled to describe those who believe
> differently than they do as having some failing or
> as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent,
> an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in.
>
> A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior
> of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's
> a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in
> those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the
> face, then I think most people would recognize that
> they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have
> lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave
> off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the
> larger world is the concerted attempt by some people
> to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel
> and its politics and policies as anti-semitism.
>
> There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are
> cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO,
> they react as if he's railing against them personally,
> and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were
> black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE
> in my view.
>
> Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your
> ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe.
> >
> > Love this. Tom always had a way with words.
> >
> > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India)
> > never had any political influence, so they went instead
> > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and
> > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its
> > products.
> >
> > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult
> > is any organization in which its members perceive any
> > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per-
> > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally,
> > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would
> > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations,
> > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that
> > defines cultism, not the nature of the org.
> >
> > It's the overidentification with the group and the over-
> > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that
> > defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists.
> > That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns
> > like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the
> > critic while ignoring the criticisms.
> >
> > By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who
> > are definitely cultists. There are also some TM
> > practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely
> > hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the
> > need to follow up any criticism with samskaric
> > attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics.
> >
> > Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't
> > understand how they believe that they're presenting
> > a positive view of the organization they're "protecting"
> > or the technique it sells. If simple criticism can push
> > their buttons this badly after 30-40 years of practicing
> > it, then the technique really doesn't do much of anything
> > useful at all, does it?
> >
>
>  
>

Reply via email to