---In [email protected], <mjackson74@...> wrote : You can read all about Buck in the book Transcendental Meditation in America by Joe Weber. Here you can read details on how Buck in the Dome got booted out of the Dome on more than one occasion.
Me: I suffered through the whining when it was all going down. I tended to sympathize with the movement on this issue believe it or not. It is their party and they can apply the rules that support their fantasies in their own little group if they want. When I was in TM I was mostly a rule follower and that suited me just fine, till it didn't. With the exposure of the inner world of TM on the Internet, most of my objections to their cult behavior have become moot. If a person can't Google them before joining, they deserve to end up believing that butt bouncing creates world peace as far as I am concerned. My objections pre web concerned their deceptive recruitment practices by training teachers to hide their true beliefs so people couldn't properly evaluate what they were getting into. They still run that game but the free access to their beliefs takes away the problem. Buck wanted it both ways. He wanted to be able to follow his own rules as well as be accepted by a group that played by their own rules. The TM mindset is fragile and it kind of has to keep people from doing too much exploration to keep its belief system intact. Since I consider all spiritual systems to be an arbitrary imposition on an wide range of possible subjective experience, and because our conceptions are constantly shaping our perceptions, TM has to enforce cult thinking restrictions to keep the fantasy together. Group think is key and strict vocabulary control is essential to keep it from unraveling. This is how they can control the perspective on ineffable experiences to keep a person interpreting them in their way, vocabulary and thought-phrase control. I mean...I would be totally against anyone who made those outrageous statements above because they might be interpreted as hurting someone's finest feeling level, and if I saw anyone writing something like that I would report it to a moderator of adult's conversations online so he could give them a time out before nappy time. Bucky is a fine feller. I like him, him being a salt of the earth farmer there in Fairfield who raises sheep amongst other things. Buck be all right with you sayin' Marshy was a wrong, but Buck don't like me sayin' Marshy was a liar, cheat and con artist. He also took umbrage at various times over my calling Marshy the Old Goat and lying son of a bitch. I probably used more powerful curse words, but I can't remember them now. Either a sign of advancing age or too much long term TMSP. You can read all about Buck in the book Transcendental Meditation in America by Joe Weber. Here you can read details on how Buck in the Dome got booted out of the Dome on more than one occasion. From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 1:28 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Confusion Imagine my surprise... So my question is, who exactly is the person Rick put in charge of "protecting and enforcing the civility" here, the faux persona "Buck" or the actual person behind the schtick? And whose personal sensibilities are we to avoid (what Rauncy used to refer to as) the peal clutching reaction to things people write here? Am I supposed to write as if the strict movement fundamentalist "Buck" might be offended as part of his act, or am I supposed to imagine what the real person behind the put-on might think about what I write? And who is that guy anyway since I have read so much more from the mask creature. Can I perhaps use the same artifice to express feelings I have, for example castigating any person who would suggest that perhaps this easily offended person should just "grow a pair" and stop trying to control what other people express here? Would I be protected if I said that I am vehemently opposed to anyone who might suggest that perhaps this whole ruse was just an attempt by a person who doesn't have the ability to generate meaningful content here to exert power over people with creative ability? Would a post heading of "Why I believe that Maharishi was wrong about everything" be grounds for me being expelled for hurting the tender feelings of people with weak intellectual boundaries? (Would the suggestion that some posters here HAVE weak intellectual boundaries be enough to bring the Church Lady down on my ass? Could referring to the persona "Buck" as the Church Lady be seen as hurting tender feelings or would it just fit into his Movement schtick and be exempt from his mighty power? So many questions... FFL was one of the most wonderful writing resources in my life. It encouraged me to write enough to express all the changing perspectives I had on the movement through a long period of time. And although to some, my views might be seen as not going through an evolution, I can assure you they did. Not about fundamentals like whether Maharishi's model of development of consciousness has merit, but in how I relate to people who still maintain what I view as a fantasy equivalent to the Christian concept of being saved, getting "enlightened." There was even a period after Maharishi died where I experimented with TM again to give it another consideration from my perspective today, on its own without the belief hype. And although I concluded that as enjoyable as the experience is, it does not serve a value for my life today, I loved taking that trip down Mantra-Memory Lane. FFL became unsafe for me to post on a while back when people decided that going after my personal life would be the best way to stop me from voicing my opinions here. It worked and they won. I accept that. But before I accept that the whole place has jumped the shark with regard to freedom of expression for everyone I want to say this: I am completely against anyone who would flip the bird to this self-appointed feeling-level policing of FFL. If anyone suggested that this is an example of a fragile ego gone wild and allowed to fulfill his fantasy of being in charge of what other people express, as well as being a complete pain in the ass to even have to think of what this person's idiotically tiny perspective might be about what I write... I would report this person to the moderator right away to protect the tender feelings of what (and again I oppose this view completely so try to keep up) might be charitably referred to F'n crybabies whose beliefs are so unsupportable and fanciful that they cannot accept any challenge.
