--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > 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.
FWIW, I just did a search on the phrases "attack MMY," "attacking MMY," "attacks MMY," and "attacked MMY" in my posts and found one single instance of "attack MMY," in response to a post of Barry's. (After reading the thread, however, I realize that particular post of Barry's was really more attacking Lawson than attacking MMY.) But this is irrelevant. <snip> > 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. No, the problem with some (not all) of your criticisms is not that you aren't treating MMY as "special," but that the criticisms are *unfair* to MMY even as "Just A Guy." Rory's entirely correct that your criticisms are unbalanced. To use your own formulation, you don't cut MMY as much slack as you do others here on FFL (depending; often you're just as unfair to posters here). Again, it's the *unfairness* that we're reacting to, whether it's simple misrepresentation or distortion or exaggeration of what he's said and done, or imputation of negative motives when you couldn't possibly know what his motives were. What I do is not to simply deny your criticisms are valid; rather, I present alternate, more positive ways of looking at whatever you're criticizing based on the known facts. The point is to demonstrate that you automatically go for the negative interpretation when more positive ones are just as likely. You characterize this as "defending MMY," but it isn't; rather, it's a criticism of your approach and an attempt to bring some balance to the discussion. <snip> > 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. Speaking-in-generalities alert! Also, Barry is confused over what constitutes an "ad hominem argument." It isn't simply using ad hominem; it's making ad hominem the entire basis for the argument. If a logical/factual basis for the argument is *also* given, then the ad hominem is merely incidental, and it isn't an ad hominem argument. Sauce-for-the-goose time: Barry, find three--or, heck, just *one*--post of mine in which, in rebutting some specific criticism, I accuse Curtis or you or anybody else of being "intellectually dishonest" or "lying" without *also* explaining why I made the accusation. If you *don't* do this, I think I'm justified in ignoring *your* criticism above in the future, right? <snip> > 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. Actually, *you* react to our pointing out that your criticisms are unfair as if *you* had been slapped in the face. In fact, you, Barry, in particular (less so with Curtis), almost never actually deal with what we point out. Instead you launch a barrage of ad hominem against *us*--*you* indulge in ad hominem arguments, as you just did with regard to what I quoted of your attacks on MMY.
