--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've grown fascinated with this phenomenon over the last > few days, not so much on this forum (although it has > certainly shown up here), but because it's reared its ugly > head on a number of other spiritual forums that I'm a part > of. So I thought I'd rap about it a little. Those of you > who don't enjoy Sunday morning café raps by weird old > farts who live in France can hit the Next key now. :-) > > The phenomenon I'm talking about goes like this. Whether > in person (in some kind of interview) or on an Internet > forum like this one, someone takes a member of a spiritual > group to task for his or her *personal* behavior. For > example, the person criticizes a poster for consistently > trying to make excuses (often lame and rather strained > excuses) for behavior on the part of the leader of his > group or the group's organization that *most* people > in the world would consider unethical. > > And so how does the person whose personal behavior has > been criticized respond? By trying to portray it as > criticism of (or an attack on) the *group*, not him. > > Thus suddenly you've got the person whose *personal* > behavior was questioned spouting phrases like "anti- > Buddhist" or "anti-TM" or "anti-Christian" or what- > ever. So what's the purpose of this dodge, and where > does it come from? > > I think it's learned behavior, taught in many cases > by the organizations to which these people belong. > They've watched the teachers of their organizations > or the other representatives do this so often that > they've come to believe that pulling this stunt is > acceptable behavior. > > Some examples, from the Rama guy I studied with for > some time. He came under a lot of fire for the amounts > of money he charged as tuition, and for the flamboyant > ways in which he spent that money (not to mention his > unorthodox lifestyle). And whenever a bout of this > criticism would come up, he'd try to turn the criticism > of *him* *personally* into criticism of the entire group > of students. "The people saying these things are the > enemies of enlightenement." "They resent the light they > feel coming from us." "They are attacking Buddhism." > > Well, they *weren't* attacking Buddhism; they *weren't* > criticizing his students: they were attacking "him*. But > to *deflect* that criticism, he tried to convince his > students that these criticisms were aimed at *them*, > because they practiced Buddhism, and were not directed > at him (the teacher) personally. > > I've seen the same thing in TM, and in lots of other > spiritual groups. The point of this dodge is twofold. > On the one hand, it is an attempt to defuse the things > the critic is saying by portraying him as some kind of > bigot who has an issue with the spiritual group to > which the person or persons being criticized belongs. > On the other hand, it is a "rallying cry" for the other > members of the group, a transparent attempt to make > them stop thinking about the criticisms themselves > and the person or persons the criticism were really > aimed at, and instead get all paranoid and start to > believe that *they* personally (as fellow members of > the group) are being attacked. > > I find it fascinating. It shows up in *so* many > spiritual contexts (not to mention political ones, > such as how the Bushies deal with criticism of them, > personally). And it's often effective. When this ruse > is employed, often otherwise rational people start > joining in with the paranoia, *ignoring* what and > who the original criticism was about, and feeling > all persecuted because they've been convinced that > the critic is attacking their group, and thus them. > > I'm mentioning it here because this dodge has been > tried here a few times lately. A poster or posters > make some comments about how one or more of the other > posters at FFL handle themselves *personally*, and > their *first* response is to trot out the phrase, > "anti-TMer," and attempt to brand the critic with it. > > I might suggest a strategy when this next happens. > I've seen it work, and work well, on other forums > on which it has been suggested. Whenever anyone tries > to label another poster who has criticized *them* > *personally* as an "anti-<fill in group here>-er," > notice whether the person doing the name-calling > has actually dealt with or attempted to refute the > behavior of theirs that was questioned in the first > place. I think you'll find that they rarely do. > > It's like they believe that if they use the olde > tried-and-true "Call the critic an 'anti-whatever-er'" > trick, the other people on the forum (who still, after > all, feel some allegiance to the group in question) > will abandon their critical faculties and become so > emotionally upset that someone has attacked *them* > (which no one has done, of course...they criticized > the name-caller, not them, not the group) that they'll > ignore the fact that the name-caller has never denied > the original criticism. > > If you think back (or watch posts in the future), I > think you'll be as amazed at how often this tactic > appears as I am. It's like the people who employ it > think that it's the Ultimate Answer to any criticism > of their personal behavior -- attempt to convince > the other posters on the forum that it's not them > that's being criticized, but the group to which they > belong. Sadly, often the Ultimate Answer seems to work > exactly that way. > > So I'm just posting this rap to see whether this tactic > works as well after someone has exposed it for what it is: > cult-think. > Whether you call it 'cult-think' or 'group think'; I think it's the same tendancy; Could be when one is attacking another, on the basis of ego, then the response is to change the subject, and attack the person who challenged the 'group'; in order to protect the dogma of the group. Many in any fundedementalist group, will be refrerring to dogma as the truth, no matter if it goes against their common sense or thier own view; I suppose it's a way to intimidate the one who might be stepping out of the dogma; to isolate them from the group, as the dogma of the group is more important than objective truth. Like the objective truth of this war in Iraq, is that it was a mistake; it has hurt the credibility of the Untited States; it has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people; as well as wasting untold billions of dollars; But still the dogma, of the Neo-Cons, continues to be 'Stay the Course'; which traslated means: stick with the dogma, or else, you are against our cause or are not patriotic, or are helping the enemy. When someone has proclaimed himself to be more or less infallible; or the doctrine they profess to more or less, the ultimate truth; It becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation, in this kind of enviornment. There really can't be an intelligent debate, when there is not the option to have a debate, or to learn anything other then defend the status quo.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/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/
