>refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>>Thanks, I got that. I consider Bernie's statements to be bullshit. >>Why? Because there is no such thing as Bernie's much-vaunted "anti- >>cult cult." It is a flimsy rationalization intended to disparage >>those of us who are opposed to Co$ and other destructive cults. My >>good Hoosier upbringing tells me that this is bullshit, in no >>uncertain terms.
>Why do you think there is not such thing as an "anti-cult cult"? >What is it about your Hoosier upbringing that tells you it's
bullshit?
Pardon my quaint colloquialisms. I was simply trying to point out that it's bullshit. IMHO.
>I think that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that there is, >indeed, a fairly close-knit group who have worked together for years >to present cults as a "social problem" worthy of serious public >attention. Do you disagree?
I agree that there is (or may be) a "fairly close-knit group" as you describe. I do not agree for one second that this constitutes a cult. My family is a close-knit group that has worked together for years. Does this make it a cult? My band is a close-knit group that has worked together for years. Does this make it a cult? (If so, whereinthehell are my damn groupies?) The Chicago Bears are a close-knit group that has worked together for years (well, they were when Ditka was coach...). Does that make them a cult?
Do you see what I am getting at here? By labeling those who oppose cults (and more specifically, those who believe that certain cults practice mind-control) as "anti-cult cultists", Bernie was (IMO) attempting to deflect rational discussion, and simply point fingers and denigrate his opposition. By inventing a "cult" where none exists, he (IMO) detracts attention and discussion from the real cults which are causing real harm.
>><snip>
>>>What was Bernie's lie? That "cult mind control" doesn't exist or >>that >>>you are a member of the "anti-cult cult"? Do you really think that >>>either of those qualifies as a lie, rather than just a difference >>of >>>opinion? That's how I see it, at least.
>>Both are lies, in my opinion.
>Again, unless you're defining "lie" as something besides a deliberate >untruth, I don't think the word applies to Bernie's opinion.
I believe that Bernie's accusing me of "membership" in an organization which exists solely in his mind, simply to put me down, constitutes a deliberate untruth.
>>By categorically denying the >>existence of one, and single-handedly assigning membership in the >>latter, Bernie assigns himself the role of arbiter.
>Are you saying that Bernie denied the existence of cults or the >existence of "cult mind control"? I've never seen him deny the >existence of cults. As for the existence of "cult mind control," one >can accept the existence of cults without accepting the existence of >"cult mind control." I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I'm saying what I've said many times before. Bernie never denied the existence of cults. He vehemently denied the existence of mind control, and accused anyone who believed it exists of being a member of the "anti-cult cult".
<snip>
>>The "anti-cult cult" rhetoric is an invention of Bernie's that he >>uses to categorize and demean us poor idiots who are deranged enough >>to believe that Co$ uses mind control. This "cult" does not exist. >>I believe that constitutes a lie.
>I still think that the word "lie" is not appropriate when you're >talking about someone's opinion. You can call someone's opinion >"wrong," but calling it a "lie" implies that Bernie is deliberately >forwarding an untruth. Do you really believe that's what he's done - -- >express an opinion that he doesn't believe himself?
Yes. See above. Where does this "cult" exist, outside of Bernie's imagination? Does even Bernie actually *believe* such a thing exists? Or is it just a cheap rationalization? Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, it still smells like a lie.
<snip>
>>My wife is a geriatrics nurse. You might be shocked at some of the >>gallows humor I've heard from her and her associates. But I >>understand perfectly WHY they do it--if you couldn't laugh, you'd >>lose your fucking mind. (the ones who do this in front of family >>members are the ones who generate all those horrible letters to Dear >>Abby...)
>Believe me, bc, one of my good friends has been an ER physician for >decades. If you *really* want to hear some gallows humor, hang around >a bunch of emergency room folks for awhile.
I did--my wife did a stint in er during nursing school. (What really scares me is those people whose eyes light up when they go to the morgue...but that's another story entirely...)
But do you see what I am getting at? Joking and Degrading (tm) as a way to release tension? Even around here? I believe it is an important part of our day. (Along with all those essential vitamins and minerals--caffeine, sugar, starch, beer, etc...)
>>Yes, I have. No, I don't see your messages as any "dire threat" to >>the ng's "purpose." I just see what appears to me to be a vendetta. >> And I've said before, it seems to be going in all directions. And >>I think that every time (*) sees another post slagging the critics, >>instead of the "church," he comes in his pants.
>To be honest with you, I really don't give a shit what David >Miscavige's reaction might be to what I write. I don't post to this >newsgroup to provide him with entertainment. Has it occurred to you >that allowing Miscavige's reaction to influence what you post here, >you're granting him a great deal of control over expression of your >own thoughts?
Well, if you haven't noticed, I don't really give too much thought as to what (*) or anyone else thinks about my posts, either. If anything, I hope I can raise the little prick's blood pressure just a few points here and there. That would make me feel soooooo good.
You just mentioned that "dire threat" thing. I see the infighting as something that serves the purposes of the cult, more than those of the ng. Just an observation.
>I don't give *anyone* that sort of control over my intellectual >freedom, bc, least of all David Miscaviage.
>>Obviously, this is not to say that we will never disagree with >>anyone else. Disagreement, discussion, debate, even flames, serve >>their purpose. It's just starting to resemble an armed camp around >>here.
>But why? That's what I'd like to know. Why does disagreement descend >so rapidly into all-out war?
Good question. I certainly don't have an answer. Anyone? Take the floor? Maybe a new thread here?
<snip>
>>Hell, I'll type with my nose. (Ok, it's harder to hit the shift key- >>- -it's just something we'll have to live with...) (and the glasses >>tend to be a bit of a problem...OUCH...oh, hell, never mind...)
----------- "There's a lone soldier on the course, smoke pouring out of a boxcar door You didn't know it, you didn't think it could be done, in the final end he won the war After losing every battle..." -Bob Dylan the above e-mail address remains fictional...the real one remains bc9...@concentric.net *SP2* ...bc...
>>>As with your example of sun and earth, though, many people can >have a >>>similar experience of a thing and ALL still be wrong.
>>Which is also a perfect example of how different forms of >>knowledge sometimes *don't* complement each other, but one >>of them is just plain wrong.
>When different forms of knowledge categorically deny each other, >they obviously cannot complement each other.
When you have different forms of knowledge that categorically deny the other, then one of them *isn't* knowledge - at least, in the sense that I understand knowledge. Subjective experience, perhaps, but I believe there is a profound difference between the two things. (Unless you're a scientologist and still cleave to the notion of 'what's true for you', etc.)
>In the case of mind control, it is only your assumption that one of >them is "just plain wrong."
Not at all. In the case of mind control, you've got a number of alternative theories competing for acceptance. While there are obviously aspects of all of these theories that have some merit - particularly in the way that they resonate with people's experience of cult membership, there are usually flawed to a greater or lesser degree as well.
The problem is how we determine which explanation has greater value, and it seems to me that when you choose subjective experience *over* scientific method as the method of determination, you're really arguing for superstition over rationality, for the methods of the cult rather than the methods of the real world.
> >>>What Bernie claimed was that I didn't experience mind control. I > >>>claimed that I did. Bernie then informs me that I am a "member" > >of > >>>the "anti-cult cult". In beautiful Midwest America, we have a > >word > >>>for this. We call it "bullshit." > >Thanks, I got that. I consider Bernie's statements to be bullshit. > >Why? Because there is no such thing as Bernie's much-vaunted "anti- > >cult cult." It is a flimsy rationalization intended to disparage > >those of us who are opposed to Co$ and other destructive cults. My > >good Hoosier upbringing tells me that this is bullshit, in no > >uncertain terms.
> Why do you think there is not such thing as an "anti-cult cult"? > What is it about your Hoosier upbringing that tells you it's bullshit? > I think that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that there is, > indeed, a fairly close-knit group who have worked together for years > to present cults as a "social problem" worthy of serious public > attention. Do you disagree?
Well, I think this point was one of the reasons that people got so aggravated with Bernie. He is always talking about the anti-cult cult, but only as a label, never engaging in a serious discussion about why anti-cultists should be called a cult.
Do you agree that this "fairly close knit" group of people are a "cult?" Do these people fit the description of a cult? Bernie has called a lot of people here on ARS anti-cult cultists. Do you think the term "cult" accurately applies to the disparate group of critics here?
I am sure one could make a case for calling the old CAN a cult. I probably wouldn't agree with that premise, but I would like to listen to the argument. As far as I remember, Bernie never would put forth his argument, only the charge. There was a lot of discussion of whether the anti-cult cult was as dangerous as a cult, but the issue of whether there is actually an anti-cult cult was never solved.
In what ways do you think CAN (or whatever group you refer to above) fit the description of a cult? I suppose one would have to word clear "cult" first.
>n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) brewed up the following,
and served it to the group:
<snip>
>>When different forms of knowledge categorically deny each other, >>they obviously cannot complement each other.
>When you have different forms of knowledge that categorically >deny the other, then one of them *isn't* knowledge - at least, >in the sense that I understand knowledge. Subjective experience, >perhaps, but I believe there is a profound difference between >the two things. (Unless you're a scientologist and still cleave >to the notion of 'what's true for you', etc.)
Or perhaps your horizons need to be broadened. Something about the answer is 42--but WTF is the question?
Have you considered the possibility that you aren't asking the right question? What you are implying is that there are only two possible states in which knowledge exists--it either agrees with you, or it doesn't. The world doesn't work that way, Peter.
There is a helluva lot of gray between black and white.
>>In the case of mind control, it is only your assumption that one of >>them is "just plain wrong."
>Not at all. In the case of mind control, you've got a number >of alternative theories competing for acceptance. While there >are obviously aspects of all of these theories that have >some merit - particularly in the way that they resonate with >people's experience of cult membership, there are usually >flawed to a greater or lesser degree as well.
What precisely is "flawed" in these "alternative" theories, Peter?
>The problem is how we determine which explanation has greater >value, and it seems to me that when you choose subjective >experience *over* scientific method as the method of determination, >you're really arguing for superstition over rationality, for >the methods of the cult rather than the methods of the >real world.
We've discussed at rather great length recently the possibility of actually performing controlled experiments in mind control. (Perhaps you missed those.) I believe the Milgrim (IIRC) experiments are rather interesting, myself--from what I have read. But I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of people who will willingly submit themselves to such experimentation.
Which explanation has greater value to you, Peter? Why?
Why is an explanation which doesn't agree with your view is immediately relegated to the realm of superstition and cultism?
Have you ever been in $cientology, Peter? I ask merely for information.
----------- "There's a lone soldier on the course, smoke pouring out of a boxcar door You didn't know it, you didn't think it could be done, in the final end he won the war After losing every battle..." -Bob Dylan the above e-mail address remains fictional...the real one remains bc9...@concentric.net *SP2* ...bc...
>n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) brewed up the following,
and served it to the group: <snip>
>>You choose to ignore the point I am making. What was "subjectively" >>true was what was also accepted as "objectively" true. >>"Objectively" obtained evidence disproved that theory.
>She ignores it because you're making the same *type* of argument as >those who argued for the belief that the sun rotates around the >earth. You're basing your argument on the subjective experience of >yourself and others, and choosing to ignore evidence based on the >scientific method.
Obviously you didn't read the post, or my response to Rebecca.
>>What is now "subjectively" accepted as true by the aforementioned >>"authorities"--the non-existence of mind control--is not >>"objective". The facts are not all in.
>You don't accept the APA as authorities on matters concerning >the human psyche? Is this a left-over from your days as a clam, >or did you have these concerns before you joined in the first >place?
I said I don't accept the APA as the *final* authority. Geez, Peter, I don't even know why I bother responding to you. Other than the fact that I don't like to see your bullshit left unrebutted. But even that is beginning to wear rather thin.
>The facts are not all in on *anything*. That's the nature of >science. At any given point, we work on the basis of the best >available explanation. Is it coherent? Is it consistent? Does it >fit the available data.
Uh, Peter, that was the point that *I* was trying to make. Thank you.
>The US courts and the APA reject the arguments in favour of >mind-control by reviewing the available evidence and finding >that the holes in the mind control theory are just too large >to accept. While there *is* a measure of subjectivity about that >process, it's beauty is that it isn't usually carried out by a >lone individual but represents a consensus view of the evidence. >You'll always have some individuals who, for various reasons, >refuse to accept that, but more often than not, those reasons >will be subjective rather than objective, ie, they tend to be >wedded to a theory of their own.
Like the one that says mind control doesn't exist, for instance. The US Courts and the APA are made up of people just like you and me, Peter. All of them making *subjective* decisions based on * subjective* interpretations of *subjective* data.
BTW, the US Courts and the APA also have political motivations, Peter.
I believe I have already made my point elsewhere as to why I don't accept the US Court system as an arbiter of any reliability. The APA is in the same boat. In my *subjective* opinion.
>You choose to disagree with their findings on the basis that >your subjective experience (and the subjective experience of >others) leads you to believe something different, yet as you've >pointed out with your sun/earth example, subjective experience >is *not* the best test of a theory in such matters.
I don't believe that the court or the APA is the *best* test of the theory either, Peter.
I don't believe politically motivated organizations are really reliable for scientific study.
>Yet when people point out to you that there your beliefs are >at odds with the dominant scientific opinion, you accuse them >of 'preaching at' or 'invalidating' you. which is precisely >*why* people draw parallels between your response and that >of the cult. They respond in exactly the same way when faced >with scientific refutation of their beliefs.
Perhaps if you'd read the threads between Bernie and myself, you'd have a vague idea of what the fuck you're talking about, Peter. Go back and hit Deja News. Look up some of the threads between myself and Bernie. Please. I'm anxious to see what your response might be after you have actually availed yourself of a clue.
>>There is no final authority on the human mind--most especially >>not the US Courts or the APA.
>There doesn't need to be a "final authority". That isn't how >science works. It works on the basis of the best available >explanation at any given moment, and it appears that those >scientists who have studied *this* particular issue have found >that the mind control explanation has been found seriously >wanting.
You know, Peter, that IS the beauty of it. I think *all* the theories are at least somewhat wanting. And eventually, there will be one or two or three hundred put forth that come a little closer to the "truth" (whatever THAT is). And until someone can come up with a better explanation of what I experienced, I'm sticking with mine--which has been corroborated by lots of different people. Including *professionals*. Sorry if you don't choose to accept them. That's really not my problem
And in the meantime, maybe you can go dig up a clue before you accuse me of "cultic behavior" again. Or maybe you could just go back and crawl back under whatever rock you've been hiding under.
Sorry, folks. I'm not being "nice" in this post. Peter's used up his quota of "nice" from me.
----------- "There's a lone soldier on the course, smoke pouring out of a boxcar door You didn't know it, you didn't think it could be done, in the final end he won the war After losing every battle..." -Bob Dylan the above e-mail address remains fictional...the real one remains bc9...@concentric.net *SP2* ...bc...
: Diane, I didn't say : anything about the use of hypnosis. I did say, somewhere, that : techniques used in hypnosis are included in the mind control : practices of Co$. There is a bit of difference there.
While I try to stay out of these threads, I fully concur with you, bc. I see bc as the voice crying in the wilderness. Keep crying out, bc. Maybe someone will eventually hear you.
Hubbard's study of Sex Majick under Crowley, Parsons, and the OTO gave him all the basics for developing the mindf*ck otherwise known as Dyin-etics. While Sex Majick is NOT hypnosis, the bits and pieces are there. While the TRs are NOT hypnosis, the TRs are full of bits and pieces of "progressive thought shaping", with the absurd progression eventually getting the Novitiate to shout at ashtrays with delusions of Godhood. I am amazed that two of the arscc's Scholars SubCommittee (Rebecca and Diane) don't "cog" on this bit, but I guess it isn't true for them (yet).
The strawman/red herring of Copernicus serves as a good warning: do not to accept a widely-held belief without verifying it. However, one begins to wonder which side of the issue Rebecca, Diane, et.al. fall onto. Are they the ones arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth? (BIG :-) to Rebecca and Diane; I've read enough to understand and respect where you stand.)
The so-called "mind control" angle has been verified by a numerous ex-members on a.r.s. I can think of, in cronological order: Wakefield, Erlich, Lerma, Hunt, Pignotti, myself, Ex-CMO, bc, Warrior, and a few I have likely forgotten. I don't mean to drop names or put words in other ex-Scns' mouths, I am simply remembering posts made by them about TRs, auditing, etc. You can ask them and correlate what you get back.
"Bare-Faced Messiah" as well as other sources point to Hubbard's dabbling in the Occult, which has its own form of "mind control". I find it extremely significant that Hubbard wrote Dyin-etics and the Philadelphia Doctorate Course concurrent with his studies of Crowley. Hubbard even wrote HCOBs about hypnosis and auditing. (He coyly denies that auditing is hypnosis, then turns around and claims that you can put someone in a hypnotic trance by having them close their eyes.) Did anyone say that OT-TR0 is done with the eyes closed? Has anyone yet said that Dianetic auditing (D:MSMH) is done on someone in "reverie", i.e. with their eyes closed? Hubbard *knew* what the hell he was doing - the mind-control elements in the TRs, in auditing, in the HCOPLs, etc., are no coincidence.
Anyway, bc, keep tilting at this windmill. Posts from virtually every ex-scn (including me) agree with you. If anyone is interested in my evaluation of the TRs, there's a link on http://ezlink.com/~perry/CoS. It's also on Touretzky's Secrets page as well. (grain of salt warning: I use the "mind control" word - if it's offensive to you, exchange it with "progressive thought shaping resulting in anti-social behavior".) If anyone wants to learn more about Book One Auditing without helping out the CoS's stats, buy a used copy of D:MSMH at your favorite second-hand bookstore. It's an excellent study in what happens if you DON'T follow the scientific method.
In article <3415596a.1229...@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote: >>I still think that the word "lie" is not appropriate when you're >>talking about someone's opinion. You can call someone's opinion >>"wrong," but calling it a "lie" implies that Bernie is deliberately >>forwarding an untruth. Do you really believe that's what he's done >- -- >>express an opinion that he doesn't believe himself?
>Yes. See above. Where does this "cult" exist, outside of Bernie's >imagination? Does even Bernie actually *believe* such a thing >exists? Or is it just a cheap rationalization? Sorry, but as far >as I'm concerned, it still smells like a lie.
I don't believe Bernie *does* believe it exists as a cult in the literal sense (though I'm just guessing here.)
I think he's using the term 'cult' as an analogy to make what *I* believe is a very reasonable point about the similarities in thinking between some members of the 'close knit group' that you acknowledge, and cults themselves.
I've already outlined what these parallels are earlier on in the thread, in response to a request from number 3 to do so, so I won't go into them all again.
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 16:01:49 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
[snip]
>>I think that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that there is, >>indeed, a fairly close-knit group who have worked together for >years >>to present cults as a "social problem" worthy of serious public >>attention. Do you disagree?
>I agree that there is (or may be) a "fairly close-knit group" as you >describe. I do not agree for one second that this constitutes a >cult. My family is a close-knit group that has worked together for >years. Does this make it a cult? My band is a close-knit group >that has worked together for years. Does this make it a cult? (If >so, whereinthehell are my damn groupies?) The Chicago Bears are a >close-knit group that has worked together for years (well, they were >when Ditka was coach...). Does that make them a cult?
Well, it depends upon whose definition of "cult" you choose to use. :-)
>Do you see what I am getting at here? By labeling those who oppose >cults (and more specifically, those who believe that certain cults >practice mind-control) as "anti-cult cultists", Bernie was (IMO) >attempting to deflect rational discussion, and simply point fingers >and denigrate his opposition. By inventing a "cult" where none >exists, he (IMO) detracts attention and discussion from the real >cults which are causing real harm.
<sigh!> I guess we have to get into definitions at this point. The American Heritage Dictionary gives as definition 5.a. of cult, "Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing."
I'm sure you recognize the use of the word using that meaning in "cult film," etc. I think (although I can't speak for Bernie) that he was referring to the excessive insistence on the "cult mind control" theory and the near-hyterical warnings about the destructive influence of cults on society when he referred to the "anti-cult cult."
>>>>What was Bernie's lie? That "cult mind control" doesn't exist or
>>>that >>>>you are a member of the "anti-cult cult"? Do you really think >that >>>>either of those qualifies as a lie, rather than just a difference
>>>of >>>>opinion? That's how I see it, at least.
>>>Both are lies, in my opinion.
>>Again, unless you're defining "lie" as something besides a >deliberate >>untruth, I don't think the word applies to Bernie's opinion.
>I believe that Bernie's accusing me of "membership" in an >organization which exists solely in his mind, simply to put me down, >constitutes a deliberate untruth.
I think you're being a trifle thin-skinned over this, bc. Lordy, what would you be doing if Bernie had begun calling you names like Bird, Barwell, Fishman, or Scarff shout at me?!?
Or do you think I deserve the abuse while you don't? :-)
>>>By categorically denying the >>>existence of one, and single-handedly assigning membership in the >>>latter, Bernie assigns himself the role of arbiter.
>>Are you saying that Bernie denied the existence of cults or the >>existence of "cult mind control"? I've never seen him deny the >>existence of cults. As for the existence of "cult mind control," >one >>can accept the existence of cults without accepting the existence >of >>"cult mind control." I'm not sure what you're sayin
