--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ><snip> > I posted your message in FFL a few days ago. Here are > some responses:
Thanks so much, Rick, for forwarding to your two FF correspondents a post in which Curtis and Barry have a jolly good time bashing me by name. Both of them, needless to say, had egregiously misrepresented the post of mine they were referring to, but not enough of my post was quoted for your friends to discern how off-base Curtis and Barry were. But I understand; it would have been way too much trouble for you to take my name out. After all, it occurs *three whole times*. Just another instance of your wonderfully finely honed sense of ethics. <snip> > > Judy: In my experience, Curtis tends to get all > > hoity-toity about folks not sticking to the > > evidence while he often does exactly the > > same thing he's criticizing. > > > > ME: Yes Judy I am both hoity and toity. Your point about > > evidence is, as I already pointed out, irrelevant since > > I was using his own words as the basis for my opinions. > > He was the one who suggested that even though Rick didn't > > seem to express his list of negative emotions he still > > had them. > > And that he has been TAUGHT -- systematically, for > decades -- to think this way. That is part and parcel > of Maharishi's teaching about "doubts" about him and > about TM. It's a form of mind control in which the > student is TAUGHT to regard any deviation from the > dogma as "bad" and as some kind of "attack" against > those who "know the truth." The guy is just DOING > WHAT HE HAS BEEN TOLD TO DO. So, in my > opinion, is Judy. That they don't *understand* this > makes the behavior they are exhibiting even more > pathetic, and even more deserving of pity. > > > You are the one who is making a big deal about evidence, my > > point was about personal attacks instead of discussing ideas. > > You missed my points completely in your weird focus on an > > irrelevant point. > > But that is how they (anyone who regularly indulges > in ad hominem when confronted with ideas they don't > like) have been TAUGHT to act. They're *literally* > doing what they have been taught to do by their > spiritual teacher. They have seen *him* do it so > many times over the years that they have come to > believe that it is not only acceptable, but admir- > able. They're mimicking *Maharishi's* behavior. > > > The most interesting thing for me from this exchange with you > > is what you have chosen to focus on in an otherwise interesting > > discussion. > > Bingo. What you focus on, you become. > > > Once again you have missed the main points of the discussion > > while you pursue your own inexplicable agenda. > > The only point I'm trying to interject into the > discussion is that the agenda here is NOT inexplicable. > It's very clear. It has to do with a technique of mind > control that can be described as, "Teach your students > to regard and react to any ideas that are counter to > the ones they've been taught to believe as if those > ideas themselves are an 'attack,' as if the person who > has those ideas is an 'attacker,' and as if the person > has somehow declared 'war' on those who 'think rightly.' > In war anything is permissible, so it's is not only 'Ok' > to trash the person who has expressed these unacceptable > ideas using ad hominem attacks, it is one's 'duty' as a > spiritual being to do so." > > These people have been TRAINED to use ad hominem, and > to view the use of it as a spiritual exercise. I'm sorry, > but that's pathetic, as are they.
