crm@duke.UUCP (Charles R. Martin) (01/15/84)
Congratulations to Tim and to Steve Dyer on two responses to the TM stuff that were nicely done. I don't think I quite buy all the restrictions laid on meditation by Crowley, (after all, meditating successfullly with "coca Cola" as mantra doesn't suggest the meaning is all that important.) On the other hand, can we ignore a skinny sickly fellow who managed to climb to some ridiculous altitude on Mt Everest (I remember 26,000 feet, but I am not even sure that makes sense) barefoot and without oxygen? He sure didn't do that on the resources available to normal humans (i.e. me) Charlie Martin
crm@duke.UUCP (Charles R. Martin) (01/15/84)
Open note: Jon, Thanks for your response. As far as the Tm is useless question goes, I am glad that you don't intend to make another big war of it. I hope that you realize that the informational content of the article I posted was an expansion of a point about meditation in general. Perhaps I was slightly out-of-line with my remark about moving to net.flame early, but I think it was justified. In the Great Mormonism "Debate", I saw a lot of non-logical and abusive argument which a) causes me emotional/ethical distress (as a philosopher and protocryptologician) and b) doesn't pass any new information on to me. I subscribe to the net.religion because it passes on new info, and excites new (to me) thoughts. "Dammit, that was an appeal to authority fallacy" isn't a new thought. May I suggest a rule-of-thumb: if the argument requires the appeal of the arguer to some authority (the Bible, common sense, Buddha, or one's bellybutton), then it should be thought through again/passed to net.flame. Finally, if I see an article about which I can say something interesting and thereby feel that I have contributed (and receive the egoboo of seeing my golden prose in green) I will continue to post it rather than mail it. I don't require or request your permission to do so, even if you request replies in print. Charlie