(Warning: this discussion may only be relevant to Judy and myself, and
people who enjoy reading our disagreements. If I have done my part it
may at times cause you to spill your coffee or Chai tea while reading.)
<snip>
> Judyjim have presented a criticism of my total commitment
> and sincere efforts when I was a part of organization a
> few times here, as if following MMY's strictest programs,
> sidhaland and MIU was a personal failure of mine.
Judy: What I was pointing out by quoting what you
told the D.C. City Paper was (a) that you went
*way* overboard, embellishing your program with
all kinds of things that had nothing to do with
what MMY teaches; and (b) that the tone in which
you described all this very clearly indicated
that you yourself found it troubling that you
had gone to these extreme lengths to "get a buzz."
Me: They had nothing to with what MMY taught YOU. My use of all those
things were recommended by MMY's top leaders to me personally. This
included Nandkashore, my TTC phase III course leader and the Indian
movement leader who actually got me the deer skin in India. It was
not troubling to me at the time, it was a total blast. It is from the
perspective that I gained when I left the movement that I could see
how odd it all was. In the context of the culture of the fulltime
monks in the movement that I lived with it was normal behavior. The
phrase "getting a buzz" reflects my perspective that the "higher
states" of consciousness we were experiencing were altered states with
little epistemological significance. You have no idea what my
subjective experiences were at the time, so you have no way to tell if
I was overboard. From the perspective of a non-TM teacher, who has
never lived fulltime, the whole structure of the programs I lived in
were over your chosen board.
> They also point to my willingness to share my new
> perspective with those who were interested as if
> this too reveals a defect in my character.
Judy: Wrong. The "defect in your character" is your
attempt to deny that your previous perspective
was a troubled one.
I certainly don't believe, and I'll bet Jim
doesn't either, that having had a troubled past
is equivalent to having a defect in character.
Me: How many times do I have to say that I had a great time in the
movement before you stop this nonsense. I got nothing but strokes for
my participation in the organization. I learned a lot and had a
blast. My perspective was certified and lauded by numerous TM
organizations including MIU, TTC, the National movement and DC council
of 300 governors. There was not only nothing troubling in my movement
perspective according to the movement, I was chosen as its
spokesperson in many different contexts. The fact that I decided that
my perspective was wrong, or that looking back on it all I see the
humor, has nothing to do my "past". This is a fantasy you have
persisted in concerning my movement participation. I think it stems
from your inability to accept that someone could have a great time in
the movement, experience MMY's predicted state of mind, and then
decide that it was an incorrect perspective and walk away. You are
trying to discredit my participation in the movement, but the problem
is that you didn't know me then. So you use snippets of a reporter's
recollections about what I said in a long interview as evidence of my
flawed perspective. This is in the face of actual evidence of my role
in the organization. I was no more "troubled" than anyone, but that
doesn't mean that I was correct in what I believed at the time.
Judy: There is, perhaps, a defect in character involved
when the "new perspective" views the troubled
past exclusively in terms of victimization
and consists of excessively, exaggeratedly
negative portrayals of the purported victimizers.
Curtis: Since I have repeated numerous times that I was not
victimized by the movement, this statement is knowingly false. I had a
blast, learned a lot, and decided it was not the way I wanted to view
life. Many of the things seem funny to me now. There are people who
left the movement who felt victimized, so you are attempting to apply
a staw man to my situation. I chose my participation, enjoyed it, and
even in the cases where manipulative techniques were used, I chose to
put myself in the contexts where they could be used. I am not victim
of the TM organization, I am a successful graduate of its perspective.
I value both my participation and my choice to leave.
> The attempt to paint my life as "troubled" because I was sincerely
> focused on MMY's teachings for 15 years, and since 1989 have
> expressed another point of view on his teaching, is lame.
What's lame is this characterization of what
Jim and I have been saying.
Rather then
> discussing ideas, it is the last resort to attempt to attack
> the person rather than an argument. It is the lowest form of
> discourse. It takes neither imagination or intellectual
> insight.
Then why are you doing it in this post?
Judy: Curtis, you almost invariably use ad hominem
whenever you're challenged on something. You're
no purer than anybody else in that regard. Your
absurd attack on nablusos for "hiding behind a
fake name," which was entirely gratuitous, having
nothing to do with nablusos's humorous dig at you,
is a case in point.
Me: You have overgeneralized the term ad hominem and have confused it
with getting personal. My objection to using ad hominem arguments in
the context of another discussion is that it is poor thinking. When
you attempt to deflect specific criticisms of the movement by trying
to paint my past in the movement as "troubled" you are not addressing
the points I am making. You do it in the context of discussing points
in the teaching that have nothing to do with me personally. You do it
instead of making a legitimate case for you point of view. When
someone like you or Nabolus makes a personal comment, I sometimes make
a personal comment back. I already told you that I am not "nice" to
people who attack me personally. But this had nothing to do with the
structure of my argument or points about MMY's teaching.
I'll remember how funny you think it is to be compared to the
mouthpiece of a murderous dictator. Now that I know that kind of
humor you enjoy, I'm sure I can accommodate your taste and make some
comparisons about you that should have you in stitches.
The reason you know my name and Barry's name is because we have not
hidden it. I was not criticizing Nabby's use of a handle, but the
fact that I don't know who was flinging the criticism at me. If he
has been upfront about who he is somewhere, and I missed it, I would
stand corrected. But you piling on was your attempt to find something
to put me down for from my conversation with someone else. It didn't
concern you and you got it all wrong anyway. Your characterization of
my comments as "ugly" was pathetic. My point was valid. Nabby knows
who I am and even where I work. We have seen movies of Barry's house
in France. We are real people who stand behind what we say here. I
am not against people who post anonymously, that is their choice. But
fling some mud at me and I might call that person out for hiding.
Many of the posters who never use their real names have emailed me
personally so I know who they are.
And when I gently reminded you of the fact that
you use a "fake name" here as well, you responded
with a whole bunch of ad hominem against me.
Me: You know my name and Barry's name because we have used it. I do
not use my full name on every post but anyone who wants to know who I
am has that information. You missed the whole point in your attempt
to manufacture a putdown.
I made no argument or case based on personal attack on you Judy. This
is what as hominem means in it proper context. If I was being a dick
to you it was because you deserved it. And in your perspective where
"who started it" seems to make all the difference, I'll be looking
forward to your acknowledgment that you started it by attacking me.
This will avoid your appearing as a total hypocrite for your previous
posts that complained vigorously about "who started it". Calling you
out for being a hypocrite is personal but not an ad hominem attack. I
am not trying to build a case that because you are hypocritical here
you are wrong about something else. The term is context dependent.
> To Judy: You have brought up the idea that when I fight back
> when personally attacked here, it is a flaw in my "nice guy
> image". This is a contrivance of your own invention.
Judy: That isn't what I said, Curtis. It's not *that*
you fight back, it's the *way* you fight back.
And the above is, again, a case in point: one of
the ways you fight back is to distort what you're
fighting back against.
Moreover, nablusos's comment was about as benign
an "attack" as it gets. To compare you to Comical
Ali was a funny dig, hardly anything you needed to
fight back against.
Me: Cool, I get your sense of humor rules now. So when I say that
your post was just "rambling", and that you remind me of on of Mao's
student persecutors in the Cultural Revolution, we can both have a big
chuckle, right? I'll try it when you are in a discussion with someone
else to see if you are being truthful.
Judy: Yet you came back with guns blazing. You made a
good point, that nablusos's analogy of you with
Comical Ali was backward, but instead of leaving
it at that, you proceeded to accuse him of
deceit for using a handle. Not only was that
gratuitous and ridiculous on its face, but it was
hypocritical in two ways: you *yourself* use a
handle here; and you have FFL pals who use
handles, yet you've never accused them of "hiding
behind a fake name." Somehow a handle is only a
Bad Thing when it's used by someone who has
challenged you.
Judy: And if what you really want to discuss is ideas,
why all the ad hominem against MMY and TMers and
the TMO and even Guru Dev? What was your recent
"distinctions of specialness" post but one long
compendium of ad hominems?
Me: "Guns blazing" because I pointed out that I don't know the guys
name? Right!
Again you misuse the term "ad hominem". The structure of my argument
about what we know from Guru Dev's teachings was that they resembled
standard religious clap trap, don't sin because you will die. I also
criticized him for his support of the caste system which I believe to
be immoral. The discussion I had about him personally, his neglect as
a child by irresponsible parents, was a personal discussion about the
circumstances of his past. I was not using it as a way to discredit
his teaching. I actually gave him a lot of credit for rising above
the circumstances of his homelessness to become a religious leader.
That doesn't make him right about his beliefs.
Your confusion about the problem with the use of ad hominem arguments
to make a point, and a personal discussion lies at the root of why
discussions with you so often turn unpleasant. MMY is not wrong
about his theory of consciousness because he is a hypocrite who bangs
chicks and lives like an emperor while pretending to be a monk. I
have never used this argument to discuss where I think he is wrong in
his teaching. Discussing his personal habits is a totally separate
discussion. He is wrong in his theory of consciousness because he has
adapted a traditional view that has been improved on by modern
thinkers. My discussion about the odd culture of the movement with
its versions of "specialness" have nothing to do with my arguments
against its teachings. That is just my opinions about its culture and
beliefs. I have never presented them as reasons not to believe it
their assertions concerning the development of consciousness. But
they are funny and I enjoy goofing on some of those odd beliefs which
I freely admit I shared when I was in the movement.
> I am not a nice guy to people who attack me.
When I pointed out that you use a handle here,
I wasn't attacking you. Yet you responded with
an attack on me, and an ad hominem one to boot.
Judy: Dig yourself, Curtis. Either stop pretending to
be above it all, or *be* above it all. And if
you choose to do neither, accept that you're
likely to be criticized for the hypocrisy.
Me: Finally, it is the use of ad hominem arguments in discussions of
different topics that derails them. If someone wants to start a
personal pissing match with me, I may or may not join in. But when we
are discussing other ideas it is a weak form of argument and turns a
discussion of ideas into a personal attack. I am not above any
version of pettiness here, but I understand how to keep ad hominem
arguments out of discussions and hopefully now you do too.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > I will address this to judyjim who seem to have formed a symbiotic
> > entity of malice toward me personally.
>
> Nobody has "malice" ("desire to cause pain,
> injury, or distress to another") toward you
> personally, Curtis.
>
> Nor have Jim and I formed a "symbiosis." That's
> just a cheap, ad hominem way of dismissing the
> uncomfortable fact that two different people
> independently have seen the same things in your
> posts.
>
> <snip>
> > Judyjim have presented a criticism of my total commitment
> > and sincere efforts when I was a part of organization a
> > few times here, as if following MMY's strictest programs,
> > sidhaland and MIU was a personal failure of mine.
>
> What I was pointing out by quoting what you
> told the D.C. City Paper was (a) that you went
> *way* overboard, embellishing your program with
> all kinds of things that had nothing to do with
> what MMY teaches; and (b) that the tone in which
> you described all this very clearly indicated
> that you yourself found it troubling that you
> had gone to these extreme lengths to "get a buzz."
>
> > They also point to my willingness to share my new
> > perspective with those who were interested as if
> > this too reveals a defect in my character.
>
> Wrong. The "defect in your character" is your
> attempt to deny that your previous perspective
> was a troubled one.
>
> I certainly don't believe, and I'll bet Jim
> doesn't either, that having had a troubled past
> is equivalent to having a defect in character.
>
> There is, perhaps, a defect in character involved
> when the "new perspective" views the troubled
> past exclusively in terms of victimization
> and consists of excessively, exaggeratedly
> negative portrayals of the purported victimizers.
>
> > The attempt to paint my life as "troubled" because I was sincerely
> > focused on MMY's teachings for 15 years, and since 1989 have
> > expressed another point of view on his teaching, is lame.
>
> What's lame is this characterization of what
> Jim and I have been saying.
>
> Rather then
> > discussing ideas, it is the last resort to attempt to attack
> > the person rather than an argument. It is the lowest form of
> > discourse. It takes neither imagination or intellectual
> > insight.
>
> Then why are you doing it in this post?
>
> Curtis, you almost invariably use ad hominem
> whenever you're challenged on something. You're
> no purer than anybody else in that regard. Your
> absurd attack on nablusos for "hiding behind a
> fake name," which was entirely gratuitous, having
> nothing to do with nablusos's humorous dig at you,
> is a case in point.
>
> And when I gently reminded you of the fact that
> you use a "fake name" here as well, you responded
> with a whole bunch of ad hominem against me.
>
> > To Judy: You have brought up the idea that when I fight back
> > when personally attacked here, it is a flaw in my "nice guy
> > image". This is a contrivance of your own invention.
>
> That isn't what I said, Curtis. It's not *that*
> you fight back, it's the *way* you fight back.
> And the above is, again, a case in point: one of
> the ways you fight back is to distort what you're
> fighting back against.
>
> Moreover, nablusos's comment was about as benign
> an "attack" as it gets. To compare you to Comical
> Ali was a funny dig, hardly anything you needed to
> fight back against.
>
> Yet you came back with guns blazing. You made a
> good point, that nablusos's analogy of you with
> Comical Ali was backward, but instead of leaving
> it at that, you proceeded to accuse him of
> deceit for using a handle. Not only was that
> gratuitous and ridiculous on its face, but it was
> hypocritical in two ways: you *yourself* use a
> handle here; and you have FFL pals who use
> handles, yet you've never accused them of "hiding
> behind a fake name." Somehow a handle is only a
> Bad Thing when it's used by someone who has
> challenged you.
>
> And if what you really want to discuss is ideas,
> why all the ad hominem against MMY and TMers and
> the TMO and even Guru Dev? What was your recent
> "distinctions of specialness" post but one long
> compendium of ad hominems?
>
> > I am not a nice guy to people who attack me.
>
> When I pointed out that you use a handle here,
> I wasn't attacking you. Yet you responded with
> an attack on me, and an ad hominem one to boot.
>
> Dig yourself, Curtis. Either stop pretending to
> be above it all, or *be* above it all. And if
> you choose to do neither, accept that you're
> likely to be criticized for the hypocrisy.
>
