Judy, It is your underlying arrogant assumption that you know me better than I know myself that makes you such a bore. It leaks into every discussion. No one has blown holes in anything. We are all offering our own point of view. Your insistence that yours is the superior one is what turns this into an unpleasant discussion.
Your repetition of the same Dr. Phil talk that you have given me many times over the years reveals your agenda in every discussion no matter what the topic. Somehow you need to criticize my decision to leave the movement. You have tried so many angles over the years. But none of them have anything to do with me. You have never had a sincere interest to understand why I left, just a need to put me down for it. It is your need to feel superior that is your social downfall Judy. You just can't communicate with people who disagree with you as an equal. So you go after them personally if you can't "win" your argument. My discussion with Marek has a completely different tone because we are talking like equals with mutual respect. We can disagree without going into a digression about each other's "thinking". I believe that he understand my points and I try to understand his. I know this will all fall on deaf ears, but many people have been trying to convey this to you on this group since I have been here. Attacking people personally from a superior position is boring and unpleasant. The people I respect in this group reveal their humanity with kindness. There is no good reason or rationalization for making it into a personal putdown. You are not superior to anyone here. Your self delusion that you are a superior thinker turns every discussion into this one. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Snark is condescension after two bong hits and a half bag of Oreos. > > > > The irony of the rest is too perfect to touch. > > > > I enjoy our discussions up to the point that you use it as a > > tool to criticize me personally, or my style of thinking, > > instead of talking about the subject. I think we are looking > > for very different things from our exchanges. > > I'd be a lot less inclined to criticize your style > of thinking if you didn't make such a big deal of > the importance of thinking clearly and rigorously, > while mocking those whose thinking you feel is > muddled and holding up people like Sam Harris as > some kind of ideal--and then coming out with > something as antithetical to those pronouncements > as your Guru Dev/MMY fantasies, in which you > construct elaborate fictional narratives around > a few bits of fact while ignoring a host of other > facts, just so you can come up with a scenario > that fits your predtermined conclusions. > > Your thinking along these lines is also marred > by anachronism and ethnocentrism; you have a great > deal of difficulty putting yourself in the shoes > of people who lived at a different time and in a > different place and culture. > > What I *sense* is that you're driven to find > conclusions about the whole TM thing that justify > your rejection of it. But you make just as many > mental leaps as you did in order to buy into TM > and MMY and Guru Dev in the first place. I don't > believe your style of thinking has changed at all; > rather, you're using that same style of thinking > to arrive at a different point. > > It's as if you look at your earlier conclusions, > ask yourself what the opposite of those conclusions > would be, and then do whatever mental acrobatics > you must to hop, skip, and jump your way to those > opposite conclusions. > > I'm not suggesting your instincts about getting out > of TM didn't have a solid basis. But I've *always* > thought your rationalizations of why you did so were > fishy, entirely disconnected from the real reasons, > maybe even subconsciously designed to *avoid* > looking at the real reasons. > > You've had three people now bust holes in your > fantasies about Guru Dev and MMY, two of them on > the basis of firsthand knowledge. Can you not > come up with a mental construct that incorporates > what Marek and trinity have told you without also > busting holes in your decision to quit TM? > > Does that decision hinge on Guru Dev not being who > he was said to be and on MMY having lied about > Guru Dev for the sake of his own self-importance? > If Guru Dev was a real spiritual luminary, and if > MMY was entirely sincere in promoting him with no > ulterior motives, does that make your decision to > leave somehow a mistake? > > It's as if you don't trust your instincts to leave > TM and have to build this quasi-rational structure > to support them. The problem is that it isn't > anywhere near as rational as you think it is. > > Bottom line, what I'm suggesting is that you don't > *need* to rationalize your instincts. But the way > you go about the attempt to rationalize them has > forced you into a very unhelpful and potentially > counterproductive way of looking at the world. >
