"Natural and moral philosophy, on the contrary, can each have their empirical part, since the former has to determine the laws of nature as an object of experience; the latter the laws of the human will, so far as it is affected by nature: the former, however, being laws according to which everything does happen; the latter, laws according to which everything ought to happen. Ethics, however, must also consider the conditions under which what ought to happen frequently does not." -Kant
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > Yes thanks, I am interested in what you say. I have been asked by some of > the folks highest in TM to apply to become TM re-certified. I was wondering > how other re-certs reconcile the moral compass problem for themselves going > forward. It is like the elephant in the room that people inside will not > talk about. Yours is a rationale on a spectrum that does not ignore it. You > seem liberal and progressive wanting and hoping the bad behavior will work > out of it. > Best Regards, > -Buck > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote: > > > > I honor laughinggull for choosing a path and sticking to it, when so many > > others fall away and spend their lives complaining. Those who stay the > > course win the prize. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Laughinggull108, > > > > > Re-certified? This is interesting. You have to be one of the few > > > > > and only re-certified TM teachers willing to post here. This makes > > > > > you more of an activist. I'll mark you down as "Revolutionary > > > > > Millenarian" on the FFL member poster's list along with some of the > > > > > other people here who go to the Dome to mediate. It is nice to know > > > > > there are other activist meditation revolutionaries here in the FFL > > > > > community. Have a wonderful meditation, > > > > > -Buck > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Laughinggull108; > > > > > > > > I am wondering. You as a TM re-cert teacher now, how do you > > > > rationalized the long litany of a seeming deceit in our movement > > > > leaders? There are few here as conservative as you and me on FFL. How > > > > do you rationalize the moral behavior of the leadership alongside your > > > > becoming re-certified as a TM teacher? In your mind do you separate > > > > this out? > > > > Just wondering, > > > > -Buck > > > > > > Doug, Doug, Doug...what am I going to do with you? I don't know quite > > > *how* to take your questions but I'm sure you're smart enough to realize > > > that for a few (myself included for whom I can only speak), becoming > > > recertified was all about being able to continue teaching TM and not so > > > much about the so-called leaders (other than Maharishi) who were/are > > > running the TMO. Many businesses offer a good product and those who sell > > > that product don't necessarily have to agree with the day-to-day > > > decisions of the leaders of that business. And if one is living his life > > > "in the now" as I like to think I am, it's very natural to gravitate > > > towards how the "good" leaders are acting and not have so much to do with > > > those whose actions are judged "bad" (or as you call "deceitful"). > > > Really, it's all very fluid without so much thinking about it. And I > > > would daresay that surely you don't think *everyone* making the decisions > > > at the top are all bad...didn't God tell Lot that if he could find *one* > > > good person in all of Sodom and Gomorrah that He would spare the cities? > > > The TMO is worth sparing because of the *good* ones. It's a win-win > > > situation for myself and others who approach it in this way: I get to do > > > what I want and live my life as I want on my own terms. And those who > > > really understood Maharishi know in their hearts that he never expected > > > otherwise of any of his initiators. I'm sorry for those who "drank the > > > kool-aid" and are making asses of themselves, but it's their lives and > > > their karma. *They* don't represent what TM is all about. > > > > > > Buck, a rhetorical question: Why must you brand yourself and others with > > > labels such as "conservative"? I don't care what you think of yourself > > > but please don't speak for me. > > > > > >
