#207851 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "guyfawkes91" <guyfawke...@...> wrote: > > > JohnR says: > > All I am saying is that the TMO is reviving this past world > > empire in the guise of the Global Country, > > There never was a world empire aeons ago. There's no archeological > evidence for it. It's a fairy tale. > > > which is not based on subjugation, > > but for the development of world consciousness. > > which is flat out contradicted by this statement > > > During the vedic times, any rajahs who doubted are considered > > enemies of the emperor and are subjugated. > > Interesting bit of cognitive dissonance going on there. The > global country is not based on subjugation and anyone who > disagrees will be subjugated. Mmmm, the mental contortions > required to handled that contradiction are beyond most people's > abilities.
Good catch, Guy. That cognitive dissonance -- the seemingly absolute inability to detect two warring and incompatible concepts in the things that one says and believes -- is part of my fascination with this latest stuff from John. The other source of fascination, and what I'm trying to get at in my other post on this subject and the questions I asked of him, is to see if he is capable of perceiving WHY he believes these things. That's a more fascinating topic to me, because I see an *inability* to do this in him and in many people like him. They state fantastic things -- things that 99.9% of the human beings on this planet would consider nut- baggery -- as if they were established fact. And they clearly believe *that* they are established fact. I am certain that John is being completely sincere in stating that this "ideal society" he is talking about in the future once existed in full flower here on Earth. But WHY does he believe this? Clearly, there is no historical record to support the claim. Just as clearly, all historical evidence refutes it entirely and suggests the opposite. But yet he believes it to the core of his being. WHY? That, to me, is the Larger Question in issues like this. What IS it about belief that is inspired (IMO) by Believing What You Were Told By Someone You Consider Infallible that "trumps" history, "trumps" objective reality, and "trumps" even common sense? It's truly a puzzle to me. And in others here, WHY do they believe the things they so clearly believe? WHY does one person believe that their supposed enlightenment experiences make their actions perfectly in accord with the laws of nature, while calling others "dummies" for not taking what he says as Truth? WHY does another clearly believe that she has no Free Will, and yet chide others for abusing theirs? WHY does someone who has never tried another technique of meditation, and who never will because they fear being labeled as Off The Program or being considered "disloyal" to TM, believe to their soul that TM is the "best" such technique? WHY do people who *agree* that the TMO is one of the worst, most inefficient and least compassionate organizations they have ever encountered somehow still believe that *it* could create world peace, when it cannot even keep one of its own from being murdered in the *heart* of the Maharishi Effect Woo Woo Rays Generator? It's an enduring koan to me, one that keeps me here and keeps me posting. What IS it about the magical phrase "Maharishisez" (which is my answer to all the WHYs above) that "trumps" common sense, that "trumps" logic, that "trumps" even the fear of being laughed at? The answer is nothing less than the enduring appeal of religion. Perhaps, in a world of constant uncertainty, some people are made so uneasy by that uncertainty that they will sacrifice common sense, sacrifice logic, and even sacrifice the fear of being laughed at in exchange for a little certainty. So they glom onto someone who tells them things in a tone of voice that implies that he is *certain* about what he is saying. They "take in" that tone of voice, and they assimilate it, just as that faux certainty assimilates them. And then they go forth as sure and certain as Borg, and parrot it to the world, and try to assimilate them. The one thing you can say almost without fear of contra- diction is that the missionaries and prosyletutes of this world actually *believe* the things that they say. They are in most cases *certain* that these things are true. But the other thing I think you can say about them almost without fear of contradiction is that they have never asked themselves WHY they believe the things that they say. To do so would gnaw away at that sense of certainty that they strove so hard to achieve.
