--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The below is merely and only my opinion.
>
> I don't believe it, but it's been said that Judy is a True Believer
in TM.
>
> So why does she not practice the most basic "outside of meditation"
> "commandment" that Maharishi STRONGLY underlined and espoused, and,
> in fact, in most of his public appearances was an embodiment of --
> that is: "Speak the sweet truth."
As I've said numerous times, I think MMY has the
Indian sign, so to speak, concerning the nature
and mechanics of consciousness; but with regard
to externals like behavior and politics, I've
never regarded him as the be-all and end-all and
am thus not inclined to take his pronouncements
in those areas as gospel.
"Speaking the sweet truth," in my view, is nice
if one can do it *authentically*. Otherwise, it's
moodmaking and potentially hypocritical. Unless I
genuinely feel friendly toward someone, any attempt
to sweeten what I have to say is artificial and
insincere, and I just refuse to try to disguise how
I feel for the sake of appearing all spiritual and
holy.
<snip>
> Judy puts down Peter for putting down Richard.
Uh, no. I pointed out that he was behaving
unethically in using his professional credentials
to lend authority to the putdown.
This is simple
> hypocrisy -- she is engaged in intellectual dishonesty and
> mean-spirited revenge upon Peter for past actions that seem to still
> be remembered by Judy.
Nope. I'd have pointed out that what he did was
unethical even if he had always been perfectly
sweet to me.
> She practices "vigilantism" in the name of a "protecting/defending
> Richard"
Nope, I wasn't defending anybody either.
<snip>
> When Judy says:
>
> "for a mental health professional to publically attempt a
> diagnosis of psychopathology via someone's posts on a Web forum,
> *especially* as a putdown," she shows that she feels herself to
> be above this moral value of "being discrete with the tender
> feeling levels of others" and proceeds to "put down" Peter
Nope, "being discrete [sic] with the tender feeling
levels of others" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
> -- misspelling "publicly" while she doing so --
("Publically" is an accepted alternate spelling,
according to my dictionary. "Discrete" is not an
accepted alternate spelling of "discreet," however.)
<snip>
> she seems to assume her view of Peter
> is "true" and that she has some sort of mantle of authority to
> make such an assement, but she does not have the credentials for
> such analysis of anyone.
I suggest you check with any authoritative body
in the field of mental health as to whether what
Peter did is considered professionally ethical.
<snip>
> When Judy says,
>
> "And that's what it was, a putdown. If Peter had been seriously
> concerned for the person's mental health, he could have communicated
> with him privately,"
>
> obviously she is not listening to her own moral advice, nor does she
> inquire if Peter's "healing method" being "applied to Richard" is
> perhaps some new confrontational therapy that he's willing to
> continue until Richard is healed
My problem isn't with the putdown per se. The problem
is with Peter having put his professional credentials
*behind* the putdown.
If he weren't a mental health professional, I wouldn't
have a problem with his calling someone psychotic based
on the person's posts, even if I thought that was
inaccurate. An opinion from a nonprofessional doesn't
carry much weight.
And if Peter were to have exercised his professional
skills to do a bit of online psychotherapy with another
participant, that would be OK with me too. It's the
unsolicited public *diagnosis*, used as a putdown,
that's the problem. It's an abuse of his authority
as a professional.
<snip>
Ask others here is they too have reached such
> levels of frustration from a troll getting under their skins. Peter
> is, after all, human, and when he shows his frustration, my first
> impulse is to say, "Brother, comrade, fellow traveler on this path
> of challenges, hail to thee, well met!"
Same here. No problem with Peter or anyone else
showing their frustration with a troll. But Peter, as a
mental health professional, has no damn business
showing his frustration by publically making an
unsolicited diagnosis based on the troll's postings.
It would be unethical for him to vent his
frustration at an annoying patient by telling them
they were psychotic in the context of a private
therapy session (even if the patient *was* psychotic).
How much more unethical to do so in public, in
the absence of a professional therapeutic
relationship, based merely on a person's postings!
<snip>
> In sum, since I am not a psychologist, my analysis of Judy has
> little "probative value," but common sense in others here surely
> will agree
Actually, your "analysis" suffers far more from a
lack of common sense than from a lack of credentials
in psychology.
