--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" snip> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You are comparing my direct observations about Maharishi's > > > > > > behavior to what I have written about what Vaj and Barry > > > > > > have written here? I don't get the connection > > > > > > > > > > Both are direct observations of people's behavior. > > > > > Seems to me that shouldn't be such a hard connection > > > > > to get. > > > > > > > > That stretch does not work. > > > > > > It isn't a stretch at all, Curtis. Good grief! Do you > > > not define behavior to include what people write on an > > > Internet forum?? > > > > I knew Maharishi a lot better than I know Barry or Vaj, > > neither of whom I have met in person. That distinction > > would be clear to you if it were not inconvenient to > > your point. > > I think one's ability to evaluate behavior is pretty > much the same whether it's evaluating posting behavior > or "live" behavior. If one isn't very good at the > former, one isn't likely to be very good at the latter > either.
We are going down the rabbit hole on this one but I have a way out for us both. I will give specific examples below. But the largest point is that you are making a big deal about not trusting my impressions of Maharishi. I realize how little this matters. My issues with Maharishi don't have to do with things I saw or experienced (darshon or tantrums) but how he treated people and what he promoted as beliefs which I think are wrong. > > As far as the extent of personal knowledge of those > whose behavior you're evaluating is concerned, one > would think that you'd be able to be *more* objective > about the behavior of folks you don't know personally. > So when you seem to me to be doing a lousy job of that, > it makes me even more doubtful about the objectivity > of your evaluation of MMY's behavior. > > > > > > > but I don't believe that you have ever given my impressions > > > > > > of MMY any credibility > > > > > > > > > > Nonsense, Curtis. I've challenged you about some of > > > > > them, but a lot of them I haven't. > > > > > > > > I wouldn't have any way of knowing that. > > > > > > You woudn't have any way of knowing that I haven't > > > challenged a lot of your impressions of MMY? > > > > I have no idea which ones you thought were challengable > > other than the ones you have which has been plenty. > > Curtis! Yes, you had a very clear idea: you believed I > secretly thought they were all challengeable: > > "I don't believe that you have ever given my impressions > of MMY any credibility." > > > > But somehow you seemed to think you had a way of > > > knowing that I had never given any of them any > > > credibility. You are losing me here. I accept the correction that my brush was too broad because I have only shared a few personal experiences of Maharishi here, darshon and his temper tantrums that I can recall. Everything else is just my opinion of his actions that we both have access to. So since you started this whole line of thinking, I would like to know specifically what I have said about my experience of Maharishi or my impressions of him that my lack of applying the term "TM hater" to Vaj and Barry causes you to doubt? > > > > No. Please refer to the Rumsfeld list. Known unknowns > etc. > > Curtis, own your own words: > > "I don't believe that you have ever given my impressions > of MMY any credibility." I suspect on reflection that you probably accepted my glowing descriptions of darshon. We have to get more specific here. > > > > How does that work, again? You imagined in your > > > head that when I didn't challenge one of your > > > observations, secretly I was not giving it any > > > credibility? > > > > I can't make you get my point here so carry on. > > You don't have a point. You said something that was > just silly, but you're unwilling to either own it > or retract it. I hope I have clarified it with some examples and hope you will do the same. > > <snip> > > > > That was not the point I was making. I was objecting to > > > > your over dramatic term vicious as if Maharishi was an > > > > innocent and I was somehow hurting him. > > > > > > The issue, Curtis, is whether the term "TM hater" can > > > be applied to anyone here, remember? Not whether you, > > > Curtis, are capable of hurting a dead guy. > > > > Oh yes the real point. You are making a case that name > > calling which paints people in a one dimensional way is > > justified and I am appealing for a more nuanced view of > > people here beyond the labels. > > But that "more nuanced view" of the two people whose > posts you profiled somehow managed to omit the > characteristics that have led Doug to use the term > "TM haters" in the first place. So again you are championing the idea that name calling is a positive step in communications here. I am not. > > I mean, it's as if you were trying to defend Charlie > Sheen from the charge that he was a nutcase by citing > his acting ability. We are obviously focusing on different aspects of their posts and they relate very differently to me than they do to you. > > > I think you of anyone should get what I am about here and > > would join me rather than try to defend the one dimensional > > name calling. > > As I pointed out, I don't use the term. But I don't > think it's either Glenn Beckish (their posts are > *far* more Glenn Beckish than the term is) or overly > dramatic. I don't even think it's name-calling. It's > a way of distinguishing between the more moderate > and the more extreme critics here. So the term works for you and you don't think it is Glenn Beckish. Your opinion is noted. > > <snip> > > And as far as I can see you are working on the side of > > justifying name calling here and against a more nuanced > > view that we all have a complex relationship with > > Maharishi and his knowledge and that includes Barry, Vaj > > and you. > > Why exactly do you believe that a complex relationship > cannot result in hatred? It can, the question is has it. > > > You and I communicate fine together as long as the words > > Barry or Vaj don't enter the post. As soon as they do, > > we stop communicating well. > > Um, those names were in your initial post, Curtis, > before we ever started talking about it. Yes of course. I am not blaming you for bringing them in but am noticing that we get our worst posts in discussing them. At least I find them the least satisfying. Probably because there seems to be very little middle ground with you about them and vice versa BTW. I don't take pleasure in looking at either of you through the other's eyes, I prefer my own. > > > So lets summarize. I think Doug should drop the label > > "TM-hater" as if they are a force of evil in the world. > > I think the term is not only misleading, it misses the > > very nuances in our beliefs that FFL can be so good at > > bringing out. > > I don't think it has anything to do with nuances in > belief. I think it has to do with the emotional response > that belief provokes. A nuanced belief can generate a > response of hatred just as well as a simplistic one. You have a point here. > > And when the verbal expression of that belief is heavily > freighted with viciousness and vengefulness- We are not going to see eye to eye with these terms, sorry. -not just > toward MMY but toward anyone with a different belief > about MMY--then I think the term "TM-hater" is justified. So we disagree. Makes it all more interesting. > > Even more so when those expressions frequently involve > dishonesty, which suggests the emotional response is so > intense and extreme that being straightforward just isn't > adequate to convey it, such that Maharishi is described > as a "pervert" You and I both have evidence that this is the case from a very reliable source Judy. I can't say more than that, but come on! <or as having "blood on his hands,"> It means guilty. It is a dramatic way of saying he was guilty of something. for > example, or when those who offer a less-than-completely- > negative view of MMY are described as "fanatics." I am against the label "fanatic" for people who post here. I would reserve this term for guys like Bevan. > > (Not to mention the flurry of brazen lies in response > to my observation that the TM critics use the term > "hater" more often to refer to TM supporters than the > supporters use it to refer to the critics. Seems like > that really struck a nerve.) I didn't follow that game closely enough to score it. It looked like you were both having some fun. > > I should add that folks have a right to their emotions, > however extreme they may seem to others. I don't think > it's somehow morally "wrong" to hate somebody, including > MMY. But that hatred doesn't justify dishonesty, nor does > it justify demonization--especially dishonest > demonization--of others who don't happen to share one's > hatred. Agreed. > > IOW, "TM-hater" isn't per se pejorative, it's just > descriptive. Here we disagree. It is the broad stroke reductionist labeling itself that is pejorative to anyone who has had a long complex relationship with the movement. You have been shifting the target a bit here going between TM hater to Maharishi hater. These for me are different ideas. It was the TM hater that I was first talking about. And although Maharishi hater is also kind of a simplistic summation, you might have more ammo to justify those terms for Barry and Vaj who both have expressed that they saw almost nothing in the guy. My view has been consistently more charitable and more tinged with my own nostalgia. My memories of time with him were overwhelmingly positive. Since I practice TM, applying either term to me is dishonest. Maybe there should be another term that *is* > pejorative to designate those who not only hate but are > also dishonest in their expression of that hatred and/or > who demonize those who don't share it. I'll leave that to you. > > It's interesting in this connection that while you're > quick to jump on Doug for "name-calling" with regard to > TM critics, it doesn't seem to bother you at all when > certain TM critics indulge in far worse name-calling of > TM supporters. Interesting that I would pick my own battles and choose who I engage in a post? I think it is pretty common. You are the one who seems to constantly keep a score card about what is said to one person compared to what is said to another. Not my thing. It is one of the most frustrating thing about our online relationship. No matter how cool we are with each other, it can always be derailed by your perception that I am not being uncool to someone else on the board. > > BTW, just out of curiosity, do you think I as much as > called you a liar in this discussion over your opinions > of MMY? You were challenging my credibility of unnamed stories I have told about him. I would like to know specifically which ones we are talking about. >
