My comments about his character and actions ARE just. He was a sexual 
opportunist, took money under false pretenses and created a big fat 
organization that has told innumerable lies over the decades it has existed. 
While there are those like you who are satisfied with their personal practice, 
there are many others who have had serious mental/emotional problems and there 
are many, many more than most people think who are long term meditators who 
have committed suicide and tried to commit suicide. And you want me to fawn all 
over the dead leader? No thanks. Before anyone starts squalling about the 
suicide comments, I have been talking to several people who have family members 
who are TM suicide survivors and who know others who did it successfully, so 
don't act like it doesn't happen and that long term TM practice and esp. long 
term TMSP practice is not a factor.
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 2/1/14, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com <dhamiltony...@yahoo.com> wrote:

 Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Those who reject superstition are displaying 
extra brain power
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Saturday, February 1, 2014, 8:55 PM

 Dear Anartaxius,  
 Somehow we must deal with this “Cognitive Inhibition” problem
 which so evidently is at the root of so much skepticism around some
 certain things so good that it obstructs a positive consensus about
 our history and where we could together go.I do
 not wish to force my thoughts upon you or anyone else, but
 I feel forced myself.  Little as I know of Maharishi Mahesh
 Yogi, I
 would fain do my part to correct the tone and the statements
 of the
 newspapers and newsgroups, and of our FFL people here
 generally,
 respecting his character and actions. It costs us nothing to
 be just.
 We can at least express our sympathy with, and admiration
 of, him and
 his companions, and that is what I now propose to
 do.Sincerely,  -Buck
 in the
 Dome
 
 
 
 Science
 Discovers A Clear and Present Spiritual Danger:  Too
 Damned much
 “Cognitive Inhibition”.
 
 
 
 So,
 the practical take-away from this research is that skeptics
 here
 suffer from “Cognitive Inhibition”. Too damned much
 “Cognitive
 Inhibition” evidently is a very sad state of diagnosis
 frequently
 leading to spiritual depression such like we see expressed
 so often
 on FFL. More research is needed on this condition to be able
 to
 protect people from the deleterious effects of this
 dangerous state
 in their spiritual lives.
 
 
 
 "A
 recent issue of Social Cognitive and Affective
 Neuroscience (via BPS Research
 Digest)
 suggests
 that skeptics possess greater powers of cognitive
 inhibition.
 
 
 
 Our
 brains evidently infer greater meaning from random events in
 an
 instinctual way.
 
 
 
 "Cognitive
 inhibition, that is, suppressing or overriding spontaneously
 occurring mental processes, may thus be the mechanism that,
 when
 working efficiently, controls our natural intuitions and
 explains why
 supernatural interpretations seem so natural for some people
 and yet
 others find them quite
 strange," 
 
 
 
 There
 are caveats involved. In this case, since creativity also
 relies
 on reduced cognitive inhibition (introducing the
 mind to
 new ideas), it's possible that believer brain activity
 was just the
 creative process in motion. A larger lingering question is
 why (and
 how) people can shift from believer to skeptic and
 back."
 
 
 
 Turquoiseb posts: 
 http://www.fastcodesign.com/3025750/evidence/the-neuroscience-of-superstition 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Anartaxius
 writes:
 
 All I did was cut
 and paste Yahoo guidelines, as Buck had mentioned them. What
 does that have to do with what Judy wrote to Buck? I was
 curious about the Yahoo guidelines because I had never read
 them until now. As text, the format of the guidelines did
 not paste in well, but they are still readable. Because Judy
 seems to know what I was thinking at the time, perhaps, in
 an independent post (so she does not have to lie as much),
 she can give more details of my misunderstanding of what she
 claims is my take on what she wrote to Buck. It seems to me
 that Buck's interpretation of the Yahoo guidelines is
 not entirely clear of the mark. My take on Buck's
 concern is that generally I think he would be over
 censorious in instituting content and language
 controls..
 
     
      
 
     
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to