turq, there are lots of reasons why what's happening about the Dome numbers can 
be seen as support of nature but what is the point of explaining them to you?  
It's simply my POV based on my own experience and the experience of some 
friends who have been doing the IA program.  You have the opposite POV based on 
your experience and have had for many years.  I seriously doubt that there's 
anything I can say to challenge your POV.  That's ok by me.   

I think my POV is both limited and valid.  That's ok too.  I'm sure life will 
find a way to help me be less limited eventually.  And I actually don't mind 
 dissonance.  I think it expresses life's richness.   

 From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 7:13 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Explain the lack of Support Of Nature for the domes 
(was Re: Commencement...)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote:
> >
> > Om son;  Fine speak, But it is important that we place 
> > limits on some things to protect people where there is 
> > a public interest.  -Buck 
> There is NO "public interest" in creating a climate
> in which people are either discouraged from or 
> prevented from speaking about or dealing with the
> cognitive dissonance caused by the difference between 
> how an organization *claims* to be and how it really 
> is. Or how the dogma of that organization *says* that 
> things work, and how things seem to really work. Or 
> whether the organization's *claims* about the supposed 
> benefits of TM (or any other technique or belief system) 
> actually happen.
> Those who do not challenge their own assumptions or the
> things they've been told to believe on a regular basis 
> are in a state of stasis, one that tends to perpetuate 
> myths and unacceptable behavior. As an example, you 
> continue to play the "blame game" for why the "dome 
> numbers" haven't "worked" as advertised, but never once 
> have I heard you try out as an explanation, "Uh...possibly 
> because the claims about the ME are not TRUE." 
> The "problem" with the "dome numbers" isn't that people 
> are no longer being paid to go there. It's that they 
> *had* to be paid in the first place to go there. If the 
> "program" were as beneficial as it was claimed to be, and 
> if people actually enjoyed doing it, no "stipends" would 
> ever have been necessary. If there had been any noticeable 
> and verifiable real-world benefits of people doing 
> "program," that too would have been noticed, and 
> responded to. 
> If you honestly want people to continue to flock to
> this boondoggle, find some way to demonstrate to them
> that it has value of any kind -- either to them or
> to the world at large. If you cannot do so, then
> don't point fingers at the "administrators" and try
> to blame things on them. 
> Joss' speech is about *embracing* cognitive dissonance,
> not ignoring it or pretending it isn't there. There
> is wisdom and potential benefit in doing so. There is
> none that I can see in continuing to do the same old
> same old and hoping that some day it'll turn out as
> advertised. 

Here are a couple of pieces of cognitive dissonance 
to "try on" and try to explain away, Buck. Or anyone 
else who dares attempt it. 

You've all been told for decades about the *importance*
of these group flying thangs, and about how much they
support the "Laws Of Nature." You know, those things
that supposedly run everything in creation and make 
sure it turns out "right." According to the dogma,
doing things "in accord with" Nature and its Laws
is always supported, whereas doing things that are
"against" Nature and its Laws are not. 

OK, so why do you have to PAY people to bounce on 
their butts twice a day? Wouldn't the "Laws Of Nature"
make them WANT to?

Howcum the guy who generously (if foolishly) has been
funding this oh-so-important to the "Laws Of Nature"
program for so many years now finds his ability to 
do so threatened because his business is doing badly?
If the "Laws Of Nature" were so "behind" this dome
program because it's so important to them, wouldn't
they have pulled a few strings to make sure the guy
funding it would continue to be rolling in the bucks?


Reply via email to