--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It really is bizarre, and I often I just relegate it to the bizarro-
> bin, but at the same time you can't help but be disturbed by the
> "work [done] very hard internally, to not to understand and to
> distort" part. No bells of conscience (seemingly); is "cosmic
> heroin" (meditative bliss) that strong a drug?
Yes, it can be quite bizzare. I recently engaged in discussion, beyond
the pale, to try to figure out if the person was i) devious and took
pleasure in wildly distorting POVs, or ii) was simply quite a simple
fellow with quite poor reading comprehension and analytical skills.
Example, I asked if the subject personally believed there was a
probability above zero that various global climate change scenarios
might occur sometime over the next 200 years. This input, processed
through the subject's brain, quickly morphed into his perception that
I stated "all the catastrophies listed are very likely to occur as a
result of global warming". Lying low-life or simpleton? Take your
pick. Either way, it doesn't speak well for the long term practice of
TM to improve moral behavior and/or intelligence.
One factor is the tendency to respond to what one infers the poster
implied. Whew, what a sentence, but its a useful model:
a) words written ===>>
b1) meanings intentionally implied, or
b2) meanings unconsciously implied, but logically present (the
writer has not realized the implications, but readers may), or
c1.1 readers' correct inference of meanings intentionally implied, or
c1.2) readers'incorrect ... above
c2.1) readers' correct inference of meanings unconsciously
implied, but logically present, or
c2.2) readers' incorrect ... above
c3) readers' incorrect inference (of the presence) of meanings NOT
intentionally implied, nor logically present.
c4) readers' intentional distortion of anothers POV, facts, etc.
Of the six endpoints, only the first is clear communication.
c1.2) "READ WHAT I WROTE" ====> "Ooops, ok, I get it now" and
c1.2) "READ WHAT I WROTE" ====> "I DID READ WHAT YOU WROTE AND IT
IMPLIES XYZ TO WHICH I AM RESPONDING"
Both happen a lot on FFL.
c2.2) enters into phantom land, neither party understanding much of
what is going on
c3) is sometimes due to reading too quickly. A second occurance is
when it appears certain words or concepts unleash such a flood of
samskaric sludge, past concepts, entrenched beliefs, distorted logical
associations, etc. in some minds, that clear cognition of what is on
the page, and reasoning through it, becomes near impossible. Knees
jerk, arms start waving --- and logic, insight and clarity are lost.
Or, thirdly, the reader simply does not have the background, logical
abilities or analytical skills to understand and rationally respond to
what is written.
c4) are simply sad cases.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
