--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Same comment i just made to Vaj. Why use lablels. And particualrly, > why use false and inflamatory (IMO) labels. You and Spraig are far > from fundamentalists or True beleivers. I have written two recent > posts making and substantiating that point. > > And Vaj is not an "anti-TMer", IMO, just as you are not a TBer.
Let's have a closer look at one of Vaj's claims: > > > These are very parallel phenomenon but they are not > > > identical phenomenon. This similarity becomes even more > > > apparent when you actually see the political parties and > > > streams of thought Mahesh Varma is associated with in his > > > native country. It is also helpful to understand the parallels > > > (and differences) between Vedic Science and Creation Science. > > > These *are* parallel movements. > > > > While not accepting your premise outright, lets assume it is > > true. How does that possibly make Spraig or Judy TM > > fundamentalists. Its a non-sequitur supreme. > > I'm not one for living in the past, but often--indeed many times-- > these patterns have repeated themselves here and elsewhere. I could > make it a point to point these patterns out as they arise (which > they likely will again) if you are unable to do so yourself. In a later post in the exchange, responding to your observation that he has not dealt with your critique of his "leaps of logic": > I've responded to what was worth responding to, but I don't have > time to respond to all your incessant non sequiturs and tangents. > > If certain patterns aren't already manifestly obvious you either > have not observed enough, are biased or simply are blind-sided. > > I have committed no "gaping leaps of logic" so there's no need to > even respond to such specious innuendo and straw-manning. Ever hear > the saying about when you point a finger at someone else, there are > three fingers pointing back at you? If not, you might want to look > into it given your own, fairly constant use of logical fallacies. In your opinion, is any of what Vaj says here intellectually honest? Here's how I see it: First Vaj attempts to smear MMY's Vedic Science by invoking guilt-by-association with Creation Science, when in fact the differences are *vast*. Just for one very obvious point, what MMY teaches about the process of creation is in no way incompatible with standard evolutionary theory. Nor is it even unique to MMY's Vedic Science; it's a typical example of Idealist metaphysics--the basic principle of which is that matter is emergent from consciousness--what Huxley called "the Perennial Philosophy" because it is found throughout history and across cultures, including our own Western culture. In the West, there are currently not just philosophers and metaphysicians but also reputable scientists who hold this view. I've raised these points before with Vaj, but he has flatly refused to discuss them. Instead he has claimed I don't understand what's involved (without explaining what it is I allegedly don't understand) because I've purportedly drunk the TM Kool-Aid, and therefore there's no point in even trying to have a discussion with me. Have you ever seen Lawson or me exhibit such behavior? How about any of the other post-TMers here when challenged on one of their criticisms of TM? Then, when you point out that the guilt-by-association tactic is a non sequitur regarding the issue of Lawson's and my supposed fundamentalism, Vaj's response hints darkly at some unspecified "patterns" that supposedly prove his point, but refuses to explain what he's talking about. He follows this by claiming that if you don't see these "patterns" yourself, you're either biased or unobservant --still without deigning to explain what he means by "patterns" so you could at least say whether you've seen them or not, let alone how they relate to the question of Lawson and my "fundamentalism." And he concludes by accusing *you* of non sequiturs, tangents, specious innuendo, straw-manning, and logical fallacies--once again, without being willing to explain his own assertions, let alone specifying the non sequiturs, tangents, specious innuendo, straw-manning, and logical fallacies of which you are purportedly guilty. Have you ever seen Lawson or me exhibit such behavior? How about any of the other post-TMers here when challenged on one of their criticisms of TM? (Both Curtis and Barry typically avoid responding to the substance of challenges to their criticisms, and Barry is of course given to long, illogical, and often factually false rants about "cultists," but neither of them comes close to this kind of extreme obfuscation.) All this from Vaj seems to me *egregiously* intellectually dishonest (as well as factually false in the case of the purported "parallels" between MMY's teaching and Creation Science). It doesn't even merit comparison with the typical critiques of TM/TMO/MMY we see from most of the other post-TMers here whom I would never characterize as "anti-TMers." To say that Vaj is not an anti-TMer "just as" Lawson and I are not TBs strikes me as sophistry in light of this exchange (and many other similar ones in which Vaj has been involved). ------------------------ 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/
