I notice the same thing recently with regard to Judith's book. Before it came out, many of the TB minded folk here denied the possibility of MMY being "other than chaste" with women in the strongest terms.
Once the book came out (and other women began to come forward) the deniers were (in many cases) able to accommodate the new info and flip to a "I don't care that MMY did this" posture. The 100% deniers here dwindled down to just one AFAIK, WillyTex. Oh, and maybe Nabby. (Or did Nabby go the "it doesn't matter" route?) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > From Lauren Slater's book, Opening Skinner's Box, page 113 > > on Leon Festinger and a quote from his book, A Theory of > > Cognitive Dissonance: "The psychological opposition of > > irreconcilable ideas (cognitions) held simultaneously by > > one individual, created a motivating force that would > > lead, under proper conditions, to the adjustment of one's > > belief to fit one's behavior - instead of changing one' > > behavior to fit one's belief (the sequence conventionally > > assumed)." > > > > And on pages 116-117 of Slater's book Festinger describes > > what happens to cult believers who believed (based on > > automatic writing) that a huge flood called The Great > > Event would purify the earth on a specific date, kill > > millions and create a new order. Cult members sold homes, > > quit jobs, told the media etc. and then gathered together > > for the Great Event that night. When it failed to occur, > > what did they do? They decided that "the little group > > sitting together all night long had spread so much light > > that god saved the world from destruction." They sent > > this out to all the news outlets who had been covering > > them. Members proudly gave dozens of interviews to all > > major magazines. They were so happy and proud to have > > saved the world. > > > > Another aspect of cogn dissonance is that the less reward > > for the belief, the more strongly you will defend it > > (Lying for Money - if you are paid a decent amount, you > > easily admit the lie). another type - sever hazing results > > in a stronger allegiance to a group that mild hazing (the > > more time invested means harder to get out). > > > > And this applies to all of us, not just TM'ers. It applies > > to humans. > > Great find, and great connection, wayback. Cognitive > dissonance is *exactly* what I've been getting at in > some of my determinism vs. free will raps. I simply > don't buy that someone can believe (or, if they're > too terrified to commit to having beliefs, have a > working supposition about) a deterministic world in > which none of their decisions matter, and yet act > as if they *did* matter. I think that dichotomy > produces an intensely painful (but usually sub- > conscious) cognitive dissonance. > > The real kicker in all of this is if the TMO manages, > through coercion, fear, intimidation of donors, or > just ponying up the cash themselves, to "make the > numbers" in the domes. What if they give a party > and world peace doesn't come? :-) > > My bet is that they'll do just what is documented > above -- change their beliefs (and without realizing > they're doing so) and suddenly realize that the magic > number of buttbouncers wasn't really the magic number > after all, and that more are necessary. To the TB, > revisionist history of this sort is far preferable > to saying, "Ooops...we fucked up." :-) > > Isn't the phenomenon suggested in the book above > exactly what happened in the TMO over the years as > Maharishi changed the dogma under people, and they > managed to...uh...adjust as if the old dogma never > existed? Take the siddhis. When he first started > teaching, Maharishi gave innumerable lectures about > how the siddhis were BAD, and that no one should > ever entertain ideas of practicing them. Then he > introduced "his" siddhis, and suddenly it was A-OK. > No one skipped a beat. Hardly anyone remembered > the "old teaching," and just got on board the > "new teaching" bus without a murmur. > > Same with any number of "dogma reversals" over the > years. The beliefs somehow got morphed to "fit" the > latest, greatest dogma or theory or set of buzzwords. > > My favorite is the famous set of talks in which MMY > declared "the drop merging with the ocean" as the > definitive, no-question-about-it reality of what > happens to a person who dies in CC. No further evo- > lution, no further lives, no further individuality. > Most in the audiences nodded their heads and said, > "Yep. You're so right about that, Maharishi." After > he died, many of those *same* nodders were talking > about how Maharishi was in heaven, and higher than > all the angels. Some talk of contact with his > individuality, from beyond the grave. > > To do this kind of flip-flop, you've got to be able > to completely divorce what you believe from what you > do. I think this is why some are so terrified to > admit to having beliefs, and so averse to defining > them. >
