In article <881379632.27...@dejanews.com>,

Mabel, it appears you have misunderstood what I wrote.  You say
you "agree" that anticultists are likely to have the power of
critical thinking, but what I'm saying is that they are likely to
be *deficient* in critical thinking.

They may not be controlled by what they *define* as a cult, but I
maintain their definition of cult is faulty *because of this
deficiency in critical thinking*.  Moreover, they often tend to
be controlled by what I'd call the *anticult cult*, again because
of this deficiency.

The "anticult cult" is more difficult to identify because it
isn't a specific group with a prominent leader; it's more a way
of thinking, a "doctrine," as it were, that is held in common by
most anticultists; the control is exercised by mutual
reinforcement rather than by a leader.

In any case, my thesis is that former members of cults turned
anticultists haven't become anticultists because they've suddenly
discovered the power of critical thinking; rather, they've just
switched the *object* of their *noncritical* thinking from the
cult to the anticult cult.  The same deficiency that made them
vulnerable to control by the cult makes them vulnerable to
control by the anticult cult, in other words.

  The first job of

Well, this doesn't apply to TM; TM's meditation technique tends
to *dissolve* repetitive patterns in the mind rather than
establish them.  Nor does TM consider MMY "God incarnate."  Some
TMers do believe he can perform supernormal feats, but the whole
thesis of TM is that *anyone* can do so by developing their
consciousness to enlightenment via meditation.

In any case, beliefs per se are not important in TM, other than
the belief that doing TM is beneficial (obviously if one didn't
hold that belief, there'd be no reason to meditate; and this
belief is not so much a belief anyway, it's a matter of direct
experience of the benefits in one's life).

Theoretically, no matter what one believes, as long as one
continues to practice TM, one's consciousness will continue to
develop to enlightenment.  The process is automatic and
mechanical and is not dependent on the belief that it will work,
nor will the belief that it will *not* work keep it from working.

 Deductive reasoning is not

Absence of evidence, however, is not evidence of absence.

I don't believe cult leaders or anybody else is "God incarnate"
either (although I suppose to some extent this depends on one's
definition of "God incarnate").  Even a conclusive demonstration
of an ability thought to be impossible wouldn't qualify a person
as "God incarnate."

It is my *working assumption* that human beings have potential
abilities that go way beyond what is now thought possible, and
that they can develop these abilities via certain techniques.  I
don't consider these abilities "supernatural" but rather
"supernormal," "normal" referring to what is the norm among human
beings.  I think, in other words, that such abilities are
completely natural; that they're not the norm is simply a
function of the fact that the means to develop them has not been
available for many centuries.

I recognize the burden of proof is on those who hold this working
assumption.  It can't be *disproved* as a general principle, only
in specific cases of a claim to have demonstrated such an
ability.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+     Judy Stein  *  The Author's Friend  *  jst...@ziplink.net    +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++