The re-arrival of John Knapp on FFL, and the reaction of the TM TBs to his presence, has brought an issue into focus for me, so I figured I'd throw it out for others to react to. Or not, if you don't think it's relevant.
Most of the people who have reacted so nega- tively and so *strongly* to John in the last few days are doing so based on their *past* interactions with him. They even say this. This covers Judy (who pretty much dwells in the past full-time), Lawson, and feste. Their message is consistent: "Why should we trust what John says in the present, because his past actions (as we see them, that is) have convinced us that he is not to be trusted." Now THINK about this statement, and what it reveals about the persons making it and their belief system. They don't believe that it is *possible* for someone they disliked in the past to change in the present. Once they have developed their first impression of them, that impression is fixed, immutable. And WHY? Duh, because none of THEM have changed, in years. Sometimes decades. If you go back into the archives of FFL or a.m.t. and look up posts by Judy Stein or by Lawson or by feste, you could "swap out" the posts from a decade ago with today's posts, and no one would be able to tell the difference. There has been no change; they are still the same basic selves, with the same basic samskaras and same basic behavioral patterns, still posting the same basic ignorance and bigotry that they posted years ago. Nothing *ever* seems to changes for them. Compare and contrast to someone like Curtis. There was a time when he was pretty in-your- face on these forums, too (and he still can be, when it is deserved, although almost always with humor these days). But generally we see a kinder, gentler, more balanced Curtis in his posts these days, a veritable model of behavior that many of us look up to. John Knapp seems to have learned a few things along the Way, too. And I'm betting that the *majority* of people here notice the difference. Whereas the TM TB trio I'm discussing above do not. They see John as the same old demon they saw him as before; their belief system does not seem to allow for the possibility of him having changed over the years. WHY? And WHY do they act like this? My bet is that what *we* see as their anger at these TM critics is in reality anger at *them- selves* for their inability to change. They cling to the TM dogma, and talk, talk, talk about its supposed benefits and the changes it can supposedly enable people to make, but they never actually *make* any of these changes *themselves*. That must get them down after a while, seeing others change and evolve around them, while they do not. And seemingly cannot. So, being unable to address what's really bug- ging them, they lash out at anyone they can find an excuse (and, seemingly, *any* excuse) to lash out at, and project onto their victims the very inability to change that they see in themselves. I find it curious, and more than a little sad.
