Rory > > Yes, I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon when I was attempting > to point out the self-evident and was watching the apparently willful > (but actually unconscious) machinations of the personality in > maintaining ignorance, but I am not particularly basing my current > observation that you (and we all) have blind spots on my > understanding of the self.
Me: I don't recognize the distinctions between "ignorance" and "enlightenment" that you seem to be making. Referring to me as "ignorant" about specific information may be a true statement in context, but referring to me as "maintaining ignorance" as a state of consciousness seems unnecessarily rude. I never question your experiences, you seem to value them and high five for that. But assuming that it has given you a superior insight in to ultimate questions about life is not a jump I am willing to make. You get the equal respect that all articulate interesting posters deserve, no more no less. > > I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from Barry -- > where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; one is > coming from a place of ungrounded attack. What the critic tends to > miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally *not* defending MMY and the > TMO; we're just pointing out *that the critic is attacking in an > unbalanced manner*. Again, you, Curtis, have noted that you cut slack > for Thai beliefs -- that is, you have equanimity there, more than you > do for TM beliefs. That's certainly understandable; you used to > identify with TM beliefs; there's a residue there. Me: First of all you and Judy are working completely different sides of the street IMO. I have a different opinion of what Judy is up to and have already written about it. I do not accept that she is just pointing out when a critic is attacking in an imbalanced manor. I agree that her motivation has little to do with defending MMY's teaching. It is a style of relating to people that is content free, MMY is just a prop. IMO it is the personal assertion of power and will that is the the motivator. It is not philosophical at all, it is a more primal drive in play. Just my 2 cents. What you seem to be doing it trying out a mental framework that has been useful for you on other people. But reducing philosophical positions to emotions strips them of the important content. For example I can make a statement with no emotion that can be falsely perceived as an "attack": "MMY is incorrect in his understanding of human consciousness. He has misapplied an ancient framework to mental states and processes that we understand better though the insights of modern psychology." I make this statement without any personal attack on MMY as a person, it is just my considered opinion on MMY's teaching. If you try to reduce this position to my emotional state you miss the whole point. If you argue that I am wrong because I am just expressing repressed emotions of being hurt by MMY you are making an ad hominem argument attacking the person rather than dealing with what the person has said. I refer to all such arguments as "poopy pants" because this is what happens when someone is out argued in a school yard. The person shouts "Yeah but you are a pooply pants" and runs away. It is philosophically bogus. It also leads to a quick infinite regress. If it is true that our philosophy can be reduced to emotional states, then your reaction to what I wrote could just be your own repressed past experience about people claiming that MMY is wrong. Focusing on that would be an unfair dodge of your point wouldn't it? I agree with the physiological insight the last paragraph presents. It is an excellent psychological insight but lacks epistemological implications for me. My criticism of MMY is not from feeling hurt by him. It is because I think he is wrong. I had great experiences for 15 years and do not dwell on the monkey business that sometimes when on. Young people are usually exploited by older people till they get their sea legs. I got a lot out of my participation and although it went on a bit long, if I had my druthers, I gained a lot. I also gained a lot from deciding that I was mistaken in thinking of MMY as an authority on consciousness. I take responsibility for my voluntary participation for years, and my choice to leave when I did. Changing my mind about someone doesn't make me angry at the person. Live and learn is my perspective, I am a work on progress and each stage is important for me. I appreciate your taking the time to explore these topics in more detail. Concerning me cutting other cultures more slack for their beliefs, I don't as far as sharing their beliefs. I know my own lines. The people I am describing come from non evangelical South East Asian cultures, they never press their beliefs on me or try to convince me. They are Buddhists who couldn't care less what I believe and don't express superiority over me for what they believe. When spiritual people approach me respectfully I don't feel compelled to act like a dick and "call them" on beliefs I don't share. It is none of my business. This is also true when I have hung out with cool TM people. If they accept me for who I am we can be brothers and sisters who believe different things and have a different perspective on MMY. Some can pull it off and some can't. But mutual respect is key. I think you and I can pull it off Rory. I am enjoying communicating with you. > > Personally, I've noticed that much if not all of my suffering -- my > reactive residue -- has come from places where I falsely assumed > responsibility for something, identified with something that was > actually not my business. I used to actually feel pain, for example, > when driving through my neighborhood and seeing a downright ugly > house. How could the architect be so stupid as to design such a God- > awful monstrosity, and the home-owner so blind as to choose it, etc., > etc.? I finally realized *I am not responsible for the classically > aesthetic perfection of my neighborhood* -- it is what it is, period. > Same for BushCo and so on. What a relief! > > I'd write more, but my wife really wants to go out for brunch *now* > so.. to be continued! :-) > > LLL >
