--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: >
> I'm pointing this out because I think a lot of > people on this forum FALL for "thought stoppers." > The TM movement was not long on compassion. It > never taught its followers that a person could be > partly good, partly bad. The model invoked was > always the clear-cut "It's only the Pandavas and > the Kauravas, the rakshasas and the perfect saints" > scenario we see in TM stories. Black and white, no > middle ground. So if a person is characterized as > black, they are ALL black. > > As a result IMO, many people who have come out of > such an environment are easy prey for those who use > thought stoppers as a tool of debate. And the people > who *rely* on thought stoppers know this, and use > the thought stoppers as often as they possibly can. > They know that the audience they are talking to > has been taught to *despise* "shades of gray" and > the possibility of feeling compassion for someone > who has been accused of being "bad." They know that > many people coming out of a TM environment will > automatically consider George W. Bush ALL bad > simply because Maharishi once characterized him > as bad. Therefore they can "springboard" off of > that and suggest that because someone *else* they > want to demonize, like the Dalai Lama, once said > something positive about Bush, he might be ALL > bad, too. > > I think that the use of thought stoppers like this > is the sign of a lazy intellect. The person who > uses them frequently is demonstrating that they > are incapable of thinking *past* a thought stopper, > and that *their* thought processes stop at the first > convenient label. And they want you to be just like > them. > yes, i agree many on this board use thought stoppers, not very effectively though. seems by your own example, you have some baggage left over from your cult days: "You're just a cunt."- Barry Wright, October 14th, 2008
