On False Invincibility Claims

false invincibility at mumThe rumors are true, the claims are false — in my opinion. Maharishi University of Management has a tricky angle on their promotion of invincibility. They’ve taken the liberty of redefining the English language, giving rise to a subtle psudo-language of subliminal suggestion.

This linguistic brinksmanship is, in part and parcel, the keystone of their efforts to thwart common sense through manipulation of what they consider ‘scientific’ research.

Again, as a U.S. Navy veteran, it’s quite clear how Maharishi University of Management(MUM) hides a “lie” between two truths when they cite the Journal of Conflict Resolution 32: 776-812 from 1988 or the Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 17(1): 285 – 338 from 2005 trying to impress upon the students this notion of invincibility.

Like so many other delusional claims made by the university, they seem to be extorting a fluke — chance — occurrence in reality. The punchline of my response to the invincibility claim was as follows:

Let’s put it this way, I can remove a clock’s batteries and it will still be right twice a day without a single electron’s flow.

Of course, any time I’d debunk these absurd defense theories the response was that the university doesn’t ask us (the students) to believe the claims of their studies. Rather, the aim is for us to understand that the study exists, and to understand the logic behind the claim.

This is how they, Maharishi University of Management, seems to test the gullibility of the students. If everyone goes for it, then great! But if someone shines light on the fallacy, they amend the lesson on-the-fly with a flimsy disclaimer.

It’s like handing me a glass of orange juice and telling me it’s a mimosa; when I discover the lack of champagne in it’s composition, the recourse is a disclaimer “We didn’t intend for you to believe it’s a mimosa, we just want you to understand that it’s what academic study suggests a mimosa to be.”

This phenomenon is commonly referenced by a word that most four(4) year olds are familiar with — A “LIE.”

Another angle on this Invincibility theory lies in the construct of circular reasoning. The suggestion is that: if everyone on the earth is peaceful, then it will essentially eliminate all war. But yet again, this standpoint is also equally as flubbed; if everyone is in fact peaceful, then the concept of war ceases to exist, eliminating the possibility that the peacefulness is inherently invincible; invincibility requires opposition for which the force of invincibility can repel. Merriam Websters defines the term invincible as:

: incapable of being conquered, overcome, or subdued ex. a seemingly invincible army

For obvious reasons, these concepts — and other similarly fictitious concepts — are presented to students in the first class which is a prerequisite to all other courses at MUM. Perhaps a procedural method of identifying students who lack the necessary naivety required for the success of their tactical mind screw; exploitation; if you don’t speak up, they will let you believe it.

Related Entries

  1. […] sparsely populated countryside as a lone minority to file a report seemed far too infinite — invincibility lacking. This sentiment too I conveyed to the Department of Student […]

  2. […] with a dozer. I feel for any student who has to stomach the ramblings of Vastu architecture and invincibility all day, to return to such non-Vastu residencies at […]

  3. […] a book — Vastu City Planning — that further boast notions of health, wealth, and invincibility in accordance with “Natural Law” inherent in the Vastu design. It’s these exact […]