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? > > > > >