--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > Both teachers and meditators believe they were doing more > > > > > analyzing than they were. Mostly we fit together phrases > > > > > from his language patterns like a puzzle. I'm sure you > > > > > are familiar with the concept of "sacred science" language > > > > > from Lifton. Using TM terms and phrases gives people a > > > > > lot more confidence in their understanding than I believe > > > > > is deserved. > > > > > > > > ROTFL! Citing Lifton in relation to TM is sillier than > > > > citing Erikson, IMHO. > > > > > > Not according to Lifton himself. > > > > Duh! > > > > > His use of the language of "sacred science" is dead on IMO. > > > Singer, his partner in applying his theory to the movement, > > > agreed. > > > > Singer's even worse. > > I found her both sincere and extremely perceptive concerning > issues fulltime people had in the movement.
Yes, I know. <snip> > > The basic problem with Lifton is that his theories and > > "models" are so poorly worded and described that depending > > on how you choose to interpret them, you can apply them to > > almost anything. > <snip> > If you would care to give some examples I would certainly > read it with interest. Naah. I just wanted to register my opinion. I've done that. And since my opinion is worthless to you, as yours is to me, I don't see any point in discussing it.
