Buck: > I got to go to the Dome right now. Have a nice > day, you stinking counter-revolutionary... > "...the word 'cult' represents just as much prejudice and antagonism as racial slurs or derogatory words for women and homosexuals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult > > Following up on this, because I suspect that one or > > more of the cultists will try to pretend that they > > aren't cultists :-), the distinction I'm trying to > > make in my definition of what constitutes a cultist > > is about the "trigger" that sets them off. > > > > It's NOT criticism of them personally. That's just > > how they interpret criticism of the organization > > or group they pathologically over-identify with. > > > > If you perceive criticism of an *idea* -- a belief > > or set of beliefs -- that you identify with as if > > it were an "attack" on you personally, then what > > you are demonstrating IMO is an over-attachment to > > that set of beliefs or idea, and a *lack* of self- > > knowledge -- where "you" start and where "you" end. > > Similarly, if you over-react and plunge into a new > > round of "shoot the messenger" because someone > > criticizes the consistent and repetitive behavior > > of the group -- *especially* when that group behavior > > mirrors your own behavior -- then you're a cultist. > > > > Normal people can discuss ideas, and even ideas they > > hold strongly, without having to resort to cultist, > > knee-jerk behavior when doing so. Normal people can > > recognize that human beings can hold different opinions > > about ideas and still be human beings. Cultists can't. > > They feel compelled to describe those who believe > > differently than they do as having some failing or > > as if their difference of belief is somehow malevolent, > > an "attack" on them *and* the things they believe in. > > > > A criticism of TM, its philosophy, and the behavior > > of its leaders is NOT an attack on religion -- it's > > a criticism of ideas. When someone who believes in > > those ideas reacts as if they'd been struck in the > > face, then I think most people would recognize that > > they have grown too attached to those ideas, and have > > lost their sense of boundaries -- where "they" leave > > off and their beliefs start up. The parallel in the > > larger world is the concerted attempt by some people > > to characterize any criticism of the State of Israel > > and its politics and policies as anti-semitism. > > > > There is simply NO QUESTION that a lot of TMers are > > cultists in this regard. When MJ rails about the TMO, > > they react as if he's railing against them personally, > > and they *over-react* as strongly as if they were > > black and he'd called them a nigger. That's INSANE > > in my view. > > > > Ideas are just ideas. Beliefs are just beliefs. Your > > ideas and your beliefs are not you. Get over it. > > > > > > > > *Cult: a religion without political influence. Tom Wolfe. > > > > > > Love this. Tom always had a way with words. > > > > > > TM (unlike Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism in India) > > > never had any political influence, so they went instead > > > for "celebrity influence," courting famous people and > > > trying to use *their* names and images to sell its > > > products. > > > > > > As for cults, my definition tends more towards, "A cult > > > is any organization in which its members perceive any > > > criticism of the organization as criticism of them per- > > > sonally, or even as an 'attack' against them personally, > > > and then react angrily to that criticism." This would > > > hold true IMO for spiritual organizations, corporations, > > > political parties, whatever. It's the *behavior* that > > > defines cultism, not the nature of the org. > > > > > > It's the overidentification with the group and the over- > > > reaction to criticism that does it for me, and that > > > defines a group as a cult and its members as cultists. > > > That and certain classically cult behavioral patterns > > > like playing "shoot the messenger" and attacking the > > > critic while ignoring the criticisms. > > > > > > By that standard, there are a few people on FFL who > > > are definitely cultists. There are also some TM > > > practitioners on this forum who are not, but we rarely > > > hear from them. Mainly it's the cultists who feel the > > > need to follow up any criticism with samskaric > > > attachment/aversion behavior and attack the critics. > > > > > > Whatever floats their boats, I guess. I just don't > > > understand how they believe that they're presenting > > > a positive view of the organization they're "protecting" > > > or the technique it sells. If simple criticism can push > > > their buttons this badly after 30-40 years of practicing > > > it, then the technique really doesn't do much of anything > > > useful at all, does it? > > > > > >
