Curtis: "George thought the knowledge stood on its own as its proof."
That is an odd statement, particularly for a successful corporate attorney
trained in the legal requisites for evidence and its nuances. If his objective
is to stun people into silence -- with with nonsensical bravado -- he may be on
to something.
Curtis: "The case for why we should take what he said seriously was for him to
make. I find it curious that none of the smarty pants holy traditions dudes
could anticipate that such an argument was missing but was deserved. It sort of
put us in the position of unwarranted faith in a guy I didn't even know. That
doesn't sound like respectful epistemological awareness to me."
Yes, particularly Shankara who successfully debated for days on end on
the subtlest of points with the best scholars and advocates in the land. And
Vyasa who transcribed, organized and compiled a massively complex set of
documents/scriptures. Does it make any sense at all that they would send George
off to tell the world an astonishing incredulous story with apparently no
guidance as to how to effectively make a set of valid and compelling arguments
as to its validity?
Curtis: "I told him that I thought it was Maharishi's responsibility to
present it in a way the people he personally chose to run his movement could
accept."
Yes. Why not appear to those directly administering the TMO -- e.g.,
Tony, John and Bevan. Let them compare notes and triangulate the validity of
the message, etc. And act accordingly.
Curtis: "I could tell from talking with people at the event that George's
business success was an influencing factor on people taking him seriously."
I made some points on this in adjacent posts. I agree. Expertise in one
field does not specifically transfer into others. At best his background is a
first level screen for weeding out those seriously challenged (I was going to
say "total nut jobs" -- but that diminishes real people with real problems)
And George's expertise has not really been established. That is, being a
corporate attorneys is not in itself a high mark of overall competence. I know
too many exceptions.
Curtis: "I think he made way too much of a big deal about fear. Fear is my
friend when I need it, and not a dominate emotion that rules my life otherwise.
I don't have any complaints for how fear helps me keep my eye on the ball of
survival and don't need any more or any less. I thought all those holy guys
were way off the mark in its importance as something they needed to tell us."
Fear is an interesting emotion -- much of its processed in lower
pre-human structures of the brain beyond our conscious awareness. I think fear
may play a deeper role in shaping more conscious emotions and impulses than we
suspect. However, platitudes about "Just don't fear" are weak tools in rooting
out core (destructive, vs protective) fear mechanisms. At least they could
have given a nod to modern neuroscience and said "Know thy Amygdala" -- and
pointed the way toward ripe and powerful hypotheses that could be
experimentally validated.
(Which is a larger concern that I have with teachers soaked in traditional
knowledge -- and who make bold assertive claims about the nature and
functioning of the mind, but have little or no exposure to or understanding of
the extensive research on mind and brain -- particularly over the psst 10 yeas
as neuroimaging technologies have become far more powerful and available (via
much lower costs) -- such as Functional MRIs.
I am curious about the Nov 30 audience. The video had a number of audience
shots, but generally the same several clusters of people over and over again.
Was the audience really that small? Or more of a camera angle limitation?
(And it was odd to see a number of vaguely familiar forms -- but not being able
to place them. Though Jerry was much the same -- aged but clearly Jerry.)
