--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rory: > > 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.
But as I pointed out to Rory in email (and he failed to grasp), and as Curtis points out so well below, often I think we are *not* coming from a "place of attack." We are merely coming from a "place" of *not cutting Maharishi and his ideas any more slack than we would cut anyone else*. Others on this forum often *perceive* this as an attack. They consider Maharishi and his ideas "special." The ideas come, after all, from someone they consider an enlightened being, and to whom they feel the gratitude and devotion of a "follower." Curtis and I are not followers of Maharishi; we *don't* consider him "our teacher," or "special" in any way. He's Just A Guy, and his ideas are Just Ideas. I think I've exchanged enough ideas with Curtis to be able to say that he finds *nothing* "insulting" or "attacking" in this stance. Neither do I. And yet, when we treat Maharishi here on FFL *as* Just A Guy, or his ideas as Just Ideas, we are often accused of "attacking" him. Both Rory and Jim (not to mention Judy) do this on a regular basis. > > 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*. As *you* perceive "balance." As I pointed out above, if that perception of "balance" includes giving Maharishi or his ideas a deference that you would not give to the some- one else here on FFL, or to their ideas, then the person who is "unbalanced" is YOU, not the person you are criticizing. Again, I have often found that the things that Rory, Jim, and Judy *consider* "attacks" are Curtis and I not being as deferential to Maharishi as they are. We don't treat him as "special" in any way, and THAT constitutes an "attack" against him in their minds. > > 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. To some extent, I agree. However, as I have pointed out above, I think that Rory *often* overreacts to what Curtis and I see as treating Maharishi as Just A Guy and interprets that as "attacking" him. > 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. Two more cents here. What he said. > What you seem to be doing it trying out a mental framework that > has been useful for you on other people. But reducing philo- > sophical positions to emotions strips them of the important > content. Not to mention what happens when you project *your* emotions about a topic onto someone else who may have a completely different emotional relationship (or the lack of one) to the same topic. > 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. This is a *really* important point, the one that is most often missed completely here on this forum. If you were "intellectually honest," you might counter Curtis' assertion above by providing examples of how one thought that Maharishi's ideas were *not* a misunder- standing, or how they were *not* misapplied. But the instant you segue into saying that Curtis is "damaged" for having said it, or is suffering from some lingering "anger" towards Maharishi for having said it, or is "intellectually dishonest" for having said it, or is actually "lying" by saying it, you have descended to the level of ad hominem argument or actual insult. And I'm sorry, but Rory, Jim, and Judy do this A LOT. > 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. Not to mention cowardly and appealing to group consensus. It's basically a call to others on FFL who *share* the emotional attachment to the ideas that have caused some- one to react to a challenge to those ideas as having been "attacked" to ALSO feel "attacked," and to "pile on" to the "attacker." It's schoolyard bullying, and about *ideas*, ferchrissakes. After 30+ years of meditation, I would have expected more people to have been able to discern the difference between what they believe and who they are. But, alas, that has not been my experience on Fairfield Life and on other TM- related forums. Instead, I see people -- and even people who *claim to be enlightened*, ferchrissakes -- reacting to a criticism of their *ideas* as if they themselves had been criticized or even "attacked." They lash out at the critic -- who has done nothing more than present an idea that is contrary to their own -- as if he had slapped them in the face. And then they actually expect us to believe that they're enlightened. Yeah, right.
