--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Any time there is a new technology introduced, there are the naysayers who > proclaim it too costly, too crazy, or just plain useless. Just as with > electricity, the automobile, and the cell phone, TM is here to stay. But is it as popular as the cell phone, electricity and the automobile? Meaning; how many who see the advert say "I gotta get me one of those"? And what percentage keep using it after a few months? > I know its kind of a tough pill to swallow, recognizing that the technique is > not only robust, but continues to grow as well. Perhaps you want to work on > your attachment to these ideas of TM being bad and wrong, while at the same > time, recognizing its inevitable global growth. People are always after something to give them an edge, TM keeps getting recycled via the latest batch of celebrities and is easy to market because of its history. But how many keep doing it compared to all the other things they try? I suspect there is a huge market of seekers who do everything once and finally end up seeing the blandness of the whole self-improvement scene. There is precious little we can do to change ourselves and TM, apart from the very few self-proclaimed enlightened that walk among us, promises so much but delivers so little at the end of the day. You have to be honest to realise the last bit. It isn't what you expected and didn't do half what it claimed - if that. But if you promise people everything, who isn't going to want to try? *That* is the genius of TM marketing, the whole shpeil from the unified field towards perfect health. It's damn clever and that's why it's still around. > I am not saying you have to like it, but you may as well recognize the > reality of it. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A beautifully written article about TM and the race to > > > > > inner space. > > > > > > > > Funny how she gets so many of her facts wrong, isn't it? > > > > You'd almost think she'd learned TM from some independent > > > > who'd gone *way* off the range. Among other things, > > > > according to her, her teacher gave out the mantras at the > > > > end of the course, as a "graduation ceremony," and he wore > > > > a robe during the initiations. > > > > > > It's the first law of journalism: Never let the facts get in > > > the way of a good story. > > > > I think you're getting caught up in The Corrector's > > nitpicking and attempts to present the author of this > > piece in a bad light, and as having malevolent intent. > > She (the author), after all, introduces it as a > > remembrance of something that happened (and that > > she was underwhelmed by) *ten years earlier*. It is > > natural that she might remember a few things hazily > > or inaccurately. As for the "end of the course" thang, > > that is how a number of people I've taught thought of > > the two introductory lectures, as "the course," the > > rest being (for them) something else, maybe the part > > where they actually got taught something that cost > > money. :-) This author may have thought similarly. > > > > As for the teacher wearing a robe, I have no explan- > > ations except that 1) she might have memory problems, > > 2) she might be embellishing things for effect, 3) > > she might have been dealing with one of the TM teacher > > nutcases I often had to deal with as a State Coordin- > > ator, who really *did* wear robes and sit on thrones, > > or 4) she might have been dealing with a TM teacher > > similar to Harold Bloomfeld, who was dressed in a > > robe because he was waiting for the drugs he'd > > slipped her to take effect so that he could molest > > her. :-) > > > > Anything is possible. The points of the article are > > sound, and valid -- TM is *hugely* overpriced, and > > simply not worth the price, TM is hyped as special > > and unique when it is anything but, and TM figures > > like MMY and David Lynch are *far* from as admirable > > as the TMO would like them to be. > > > > Just as the author may have skewed things a little > > to make her point, Judy skews things in her way to > > make the author seem malevolent. Anything rather > > than accept the fact that for most people, the > > author's piece strikes a resonance, and captures > > how insanely WEIRD TM and all the hoopla surrounding > > how it is taught are. Judy is so far from that exper- > > ience that she can't remember how WEIRD it all is; > > the author of this piece is not. > > >
