--- 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.
You know, speaking for myself alone on this one, I don't believe in lack of free will but also don't believe in free will either. I just don't know. And the reason I ever ever doubted free will is due to an experience (not a belief). The experiences of witnessing. Those, combined with some of the theories of how things work on the quantum level of life (which seems to operate much differently than things appear here at a more macro level) and also combined with recent findings about the brain - that all leads me to wonder if my perceptions are the full story. But it does not make me behave differently and actually does not produce a dissonance that I am aware of. I can live with the uncertainty and look forward to advances in science that might shed some light on the whole situation. I am guessing that even people who profess to believe in no free will still act, just by default, as if we are responsible for what we do and think. And there is no utility to that belief, except when things reach the courts due to crimes. I realize this gets under your skin!! But we have discussed this a few times before, and you are not going to change my mind:) > > 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." :-) Of course they will find a reason for the failure and it won't have anything to do with a mistake on their part. Here's the big part of it all: What is most interesting, from the research, is that such a failure of a forecast to "come true" will result in Stronger belief, not less!!! > > 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. Never heard of people saying this about contacting MMY. But if you believe in the Holy Tradition and the Masters being invoked by the puja, then it seems logical that MMY himself might have some aspect of his individuality around somewhere. Where and how I have no clue. You are correct, it does deny the process MMY described. I do recall the lectures about merging with the ocean. Most of us don't really want to accept the end of individuality no matter what state of consciousness. Merging with some big Consciousness has a tinge of bleakness to it, but then any aspect of death does when you compare it to living. Many here (including me) have asked about that, more than once, here on FFl. It is a big topic and very fuzzy and allows for so much conjecture. I guess the solution is for Bobby or John or Bevan to remind people of what MMY said and that might quiet down this type of talk. Still, you are always going to have people like this, and nothing will change their minds. > > 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. >
