--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > I'm not a "tmo TB" by any stretch, although I > suspect you're including me here.
No I don't. You use a different language generally and you use more objective logic. In fact my guess is that if you were to actually work for the tmo for a couple yrs you might get into trouble. I guess I would consider you a theoretical TM-SCI TB, which is just fine, except I don't think actual life and practice within the tmo community has much to do with TM or MMY's thinking a la the early 70s. > > From my perspective, it isn't at all a matter of > trying to "enforce" official TMO thinking; it > would be foolish in the extreme to make such an > attempt. > > Often the "alternative world view" incorporates > an extremely uncharitable interpretation of why > the TMO has done or said something. In some of > those cases, there's a more positive > interpretation that's at least somewhat plausible. > Since we don't know for sure what the TMO was > thinking, it makes sense to me that both possible > interpretations be provided. > > Plus which, there are a few people here whose > negative views of the TMO/MMY/TMers are > consistently expressed in an unnecessarily > unpleasant, superior, demeaning, insulting tone. > In at least some cases, what we're responding to > is as much the tone as the specifics. My response > to Vaj that you quote above was one such case. > > And then there are the flat-out factually > inaccurate or grossly misleading criticisms. > Nobody sensible should want their alternative > worldview to be based on such statements. > > And when one of the unpleasant people mentioned > above consistently comes out with factually > inaccurate or misleading criticisms, it's > awfully hard to resist thinking they're being > deliberately dishonest. > > If you're dubious about what I just wrote, you > might want to take into account how many of > the criticisms made here we *don't* object to. > If you compare those we don't object to to those > we do object to, I think you'll probably find > that the latter mostly, if not all, tend to fall > into the above categories. > > <snip> > > This site isn't filled with J.Knapp's who are > > out there as anti TM activists, we're just > > individuals generally with long "spiritual" > > histories working things out amongst ourselves > > It's not "filled" with them, certainly, but there > are several who seem to be at least informal > anti-TM activists, who are here not to work things > out but simply to bash. I think it would be > extremely difficult to characterize Vaj as wanting > to work things out for himself. He's already > decided, and he wants to push anyone still on the > fence to decide the same way, while at the same > time nastily putting down anyone who leans the > other way. And he doesn't seem to me to have many > scruples as to how he accomplishes that, with > regard either to honesty or minimal tolerance for > disagreement. >
