Deductive Reasoning
ma...@clear.net.nz
In article <SULYqq2B...@panix.com>,
jst...@ziplink.net wrote:
Snip
>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.
I disagree that "anticultists" are likely to be deficient in critical
thinking, although this is what cult leaders try and convince their
members is the case. There are large numbers of people who are concerned
about the potentially destructive effects of certain cults, who have
never ever been members of cults. These people could be labelled as
anticultists, but they are able to see through the motives and operations
of certain cults and their use of meditation as one of their mind
controlling techniques. Such people are certainly not vulnerable to mind
control by organised groups of either pro cult or anti cult people.
As far as people who join cults, I know several people who had excellent
powers of critical thinking before they joined a cult, but after a few
weeks of meditation and other programming techniques, they became more
and more dependent on the group and gradually started to reject family
and friends who were outside the group. It was at this point they started
to believe the Guru was either God incarnate or had spiritual powers far
above those of anyone else on Earth. They started to believe in
reincarnation and that it was necessary to live a celibate life, and to
be a vegetarian. They were also convinced that the Guru was capable of
paranormal feats, even though outside experts could explain with
authority why some of these feats were probably not paranormal. See, for
example, the comments of Dr Terry Todd about the weightlifting claims of
Guru Sri Chinmoy, who says he is a fully realised spiritual Master:
http://outside.starwave.com/magazine/1096/9610febls.html
http://outside.starwave.com/magazine/1096/9610febl.html
So the "deficiency" or "noncritical thinking" of the cult members I know,
was probably induced by the programming techniques used by the Group, and
was almost certainly not due to deficiencies in the critical thinking
powers of these people before they joined the group. After a while, such
people can regain their self sufficiency and powers of critical thinking.
For an example of this, read the following work by Peter McWilliams:
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/lf2appa.htm
Peter says that he stopped doing TM in 1977 when the promise of Cosmic
Consciousness in eight years of regular meditation was not fulfilled.
Read also Peter’s account of cult programming at:
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/lf2toc.htm
We are all very fortunate to have access to such a vast library of
material available on internet. Before joining any group, spiritual or
otherwise, my advice is to do an internet search on it in some detail,
both of web sites and current and old Usenet postings through Deja News,
and then carefully balance out the pros and cons. This would at least
indicate a balanced approach and the exercise of critical thinking!
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Judy Stein
In article <882091004...@dejanews.com>,
ma...@clear.net.nz wrote:
Just for the record, my remarks are based on my observation of
what anticultists say, not what anybody else may have said.
There are large numbers of people who are concerned
> about the potentially destructive effects of certain cults, who have
> never ever been members of cults. These people could be labelled as
> anticultists, but they are able to see through the motives and operations
> of certain cults and their use of meditation as one of their mind
> controlling techniques. Such people are certainly not vulnerable to mind
> control by organised groups of either pro cult or anti cult people.
Well, I don't know that this is *necessarily* the case. It has
certainly been my observation that at least *some* anticultists
who have never been in a cult do not think critically about their
opposition to cults. And anyone who is deficient in critical
thinking is vulnerable to mind control, whether it be deliberate
or simply a function of group dynamics.
However, if you'll reread what I said in the fourth paragraph
from my post quoted above, I was referring there to anticultists
who *had* belonged to a cult.
With regard to anticultists who were never cult members, their
attitudes may be due to just plain bigotry, an inability to
tolerate the existence of belief systems significantly different
from their own. I'd suggest that bigotry *in general* is a
function of lack of critical thinking.
One of the most glaring examples of such a lack is the
contradiction between the insistence that the anticult movement
espouses freedom of belief, on the one hand, and on the other the
rejection of the beliefs of groups the movement deems to be
cults. This translates into "freedom to believe whatever you
want as long as it's what *I* believe."
Another example is the inability or unwillingness to provide a
definition of "cult" that clearly distinguishes the kinds of
groups anticultists consider cults from other groups that nobody
would think of as cults. A group is a cult because anticultists
call it a cult, in other words. Anticultists tend to be unable
to see the need for safeguards to ensure the right to freedom of
belief is not abrogated as a consequence of efforts to remedy the
effects of what they consider to be mind control. It's a fine
line, granted, but it's a fundamentally *subjective* line, and
anticultists, in my observation, have difficulty perceiving how
important it is to think very critically about where and on what
basis that line should be drawn.
Yet another example is the tendency of anticultists to attribute
any criticism of their efforts to the effects of mind control.
(Above, for instance, you suggested the charge of deficient
critical thinking against anticultists emanated from cult
leaders.) There seems to be an inability to accept the
possibility that there can be any *objective* criticism of the
anticult movement--which is, ironically, mirrored by the cult
position that criticism of the cult is made on the basis of
prejudice. Just as criticism of a cult may be objective, so may
criticism of the anticult group.
Indeed, many of the characteristics attributed to cults that are
decried by anticultists are mirrored in the doctrine and
activities of their own movement. I'd suggest the inability to
recognize this is a function of deficiencies in critical
thinking.
> As far as people who join cults, I know several people who had excellent
> powers of critical thinking before they joined a cult, but after a few
> weeks of meditation and other programming techniques, they became more
> and more dependent on the group and gradually started to reject family
> and friends who were outside the group.
Then I would question how great their powers of critical thinking
actually were to start with. It may also be the case that a
person is able to think critically in some areas but not in
others. And the psychological need to be dependent on a group
may be so strong that it can override critical thinking *about*
the group.
I trust you're not suggesting, by the way, that meditation *per
se* is always a "programming technique." And I'd ask you what
hard scientific evidence you have that meditation, even in a cult
context, diminishes the ability to think critically.
It was at this point they started
> to believe the Guru was either God incarnate or had spiritual powers far
> above those of anyone else on Earth.
Sounds a lot like what the followers of Jesus believed (and still
do, for that matter, but I'm thinking of those who followed him
while he was alive). On what basis would you make a distinction
between cult beliefs in that regard and the beliefs on which many
established religions are founded?
They started to believe in
> reincarnation and that it was necessary to live a celibate life, and to
> be a vegetarian.
Are you saying belief in reincarnation, celibacy, and
vegetarianism is always due to mind control? If not, how do you
distinguish between sincere belief that is *not* due to mind
control and belief that *is*?
They were also convinced that the Guru was capable of
> paranormal feats, even though outside experts could explain with
> authority why some of these feats were probably not paranormal.
"Probably not"?
I make no claims that any guru is capable of paranormal feats.
But it's important to recognize a demonstration that a given feat
can be accomplished through non-paranormal means is not proof
that this *must* be how it was accomplished in a particular case.
Again, the assumption to the contrary is an indication of
deficiency in critical thinking.
See, for
> example, the comments of Dr Terry Todd about the weightlifting claims of
> Guru Sri Chinmoy, who says he is a fully realised spiritual Master:
Do you consider Sri Chinmoy's followers to be cultists?
<snip>
> So the "deficiency" or "noncritical thinking" of the cult members I know,
> was probably induced by the programming techniques used by the Group, and
> was almost certainly not due to deficiencies in the critical thinking
> powers of these people before they joined the group.
I don't think you have made a very definitive case.
After a while, such
> people can regain their self sufficiency and powers of critical thinking.
> For an example of this, read the following work by Peter McWilliams:
>
> http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/lf2appa.htm
>
> Peter says that he stopped doing TM in 1977 when the promise of Cosmic
> Consciousness in eight years of regular meditation was not fulfilled.
Here you appear to be *defining* critical thinking as the
rejection of the beliefs of the group, rather than examining the
reasons for rejecting those beliefs to see if those reasons were,
in fact, solidly grounded in critical thinking.
Incidentally, in another thread on alt.meditation.transcendental
we've been discussing the promise you cite in some detail; there
are circumstances concerning that promise that aren't reflected
in McWilliams's account, including the fact that when it became
apparent the promise itself was overly optimistic, it was no
longer made.
Here I'll just suggest that rejecting TM because that
*particular* promise was not fulfilled may not be all that
reasonable given the other benefits that result from practice of
TM--a matter of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in
other words.
> Read also Peter’s account of cult programming at:
>
> http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/lf2toc.htm
It's interesting to note that Peter involved himself with more
than one group. As I recall, TM was the first group. In any
case, when a person moves from group to group, it's not clear
that there is much justification for the claim that leaving any
of the groups other than the last was a matter of having regained
the ability to think critically.
Membership in several different groups in sequence, indeed,
suggests that the person had an innate need for the sort of
reassurance and security provided by group membership, rather
than that their ability to think critically was inhibited by mind
control. It's also important to examine such a person's
attitudes once they have stopped joining such groups. As I
suggested to begin with, it may turn out to be the case that they
have simply transferred their need to belong to a group from
groups considered cults by anticultists to the anticult group.
Or it may not. The important thing is to undertake such
examination rather than making easy assumptions. That this is
important is something that, in my observation, tends not to be
recognized by anticultists.
For the record, I'm by no means denying that there are groups
which exercise mind control and that are potentially harmful to
those who become members. I'm just suggesting that the anticult
movement's doctrine and practices often do not reflect the kind
of critical thinking anticultists claim is destroyed by cult mind
control practices.
> We are all very fortunate to have access to such a vast library of
> material available on internet. Before joining any group, spiritual or
> otherwise, my advice is to do an internet search on it in some detail,
> both of web sites and current and old Usenet postings through Deja News,
> and then carefully balance out the pros and cons. This would at least
> indicate a balanced approach and the exercise of critical thinking!
I'm glad you advocate reading Usenet postings. In the case of
TM, as it happens, the material on the anti-TM Web sites is, to
put it mildly, extremely misleading. It's crucial to read the
traffic on the alt.m.t newsgroup to see the arguments concerning
the purported "cons" and get both sides of the story.
I'd suggest that one approach the anticult material with the same
skepticism that one examines the material promoting the groups
themselves. There is a strong emotional investment on the part
of both sides, and it may be a serious mistake to assume the
anticult material is perfectly objective and entirely accurate.
As you say, it's of the utmost importance to obtain a *balanced*
view.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@ziplink.net +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bernie
ma...@clear.net.nz wrote in article <882091004...@dejanews.com>
(alt.meditation):
>In article <SULYqq2B...@panix.com>, jst...@ziplink.net wrote:
>> 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.
>I disagree that "anticultists" are likely to be deficient in critical
>thinking, although this is what cult leaders try and convince their
>members is the case.
It isn't because cult leaders try and convince their members that
their opponents are unable to think critically that this automatically
rules out the possibility.
I personally would agree 100% with the statement of Judy. I have
personally observed an amazing lack of critical thinking on the part
of most anti-cultist. This is especially visible when they get
attacked by people who are *not* cultists, or who even might never
have been in a cult. Their ability to accept criticism against their
own "group" is amazingly low - they usually dismiss their critics as
somehow deluded, or still in need of "recovery" from their former
group, and they dismiss scholars who have successfully debunked the
fallacious theory of mind-control as "cult apologists".
>There are large numbers of people who are concerned
>about the potentially destructive effects of certain cults, who have
>never ever been members of cults.
Does it mean that they are not susceptible themselves to fear,
ignorance and paranoia? You don't need to be an ex-cult member to be
subjected to the negative effects of mass hysteria movement. It is a
very common phenomenon, alas.
>These people could be labelled as
>anticultists, but they are able to see through the motives and operations
>of certain cults
What makes you think that the motives they attribute to cults and
cult leaders are the correct ones? What makes you think that these are
not simply their subjective and biased interpretation?
>and their use of meditation as one of their mind
>controlling techniques.
Define mind-control. Explain how meditation acts as a
mind-control technique.
This has been unproven since the notion has been around, which
could be roughly estimated to be in the last 30 years. On the
contrary, studies conducted by scholars have indicated that the claims
of anti-cultists could not be substantiated. OTOH, studies conducted
by Margaret Singer, one of the leading figure in the movement, have
been rejected by the APA (American Psychiatric Association), and the
APA has urged its member *not* to treat cult members as if under the
"mind-control".
>Such people are certainly not vulnerable to mind
>control by organised groups of either pro cult or anti cult people.
They are subjected to the influence of fear, disinformation,
emotional and irrational reaction just like anyone. I would say that
it's precisely their lack of ability to think critically that makes
them subject to superstitious beliefs such as "mind-control".
>As far as people who join cults, I know several people who had excellent
>powers of critical thinking before they joined a cult, but after a few
>weeks of meditation and other programming techniques, they became more
>and more dependent on the group and gradually started to reject family
>and friends who were outside the group.
How can you know that they had "excellent powers of critical
thinking before they joined a cult"? Can you give examples on what you
are basing yourself to make this statement?
>It was at this point they started
>to believe the Guru was either God incarnate or had spiritual powers far
>above those of anyone else on Earth. They started to believe in
>reincarnation and that it was necessary to live a celibate life, and to
>be a vegetarian.
Would you say that the valid criteria to recognize "mind-control"
is when you start to believe in reincarnation, the necessity to live a
celibate life, and to be a vegetarian?
>They were also convinced that the Guru was capable of
>paranormal feats, even though outside experts could explain with
>authority why some of these feats were probably not paranormal.
Has the matter been definitively proven one way or the other or
are they still controversial?
Do you think that a zombie state can be attributed to everyone
who believes that Moses opened the Red Sea with a flicker of his arm
or that a virgin gave birth to the son of God who then went about
curing lepers and making bread and fish out of thin air?
>So the "deficiency" or "noncritical thinking" of the cult members I know,
>was probably induced by the programming techniques used by the Group, and
>was almost certainly not due to deficiencies in the critical thinking
>powers of these people before they joined the group.
What does your "almost certainly" means? How do you go about
determining their power of critical thinking before they joined and
after they joined?
>After a while, such
>people can regain their self sufficiency and powers of critical thinking.
How do you determine that? Because they left the cult?
>Peter says that he stopped doing TM in 1977 when the promise of Cosmic
>Consciousness in eight years of regular meditation was not fulfilled.
So, is any disenchanted religionist a victim of mind-control? On
what mind-control definition are you basing yourself to start with?
>We are all very fortunate to have access to such a vast library of
>material available on internet. Before joining any group, spiritual or
>otherwise, my advice is to do an internet search
What is referred to as "cyberhate" is an increased worry. An
article about this phenomenon can be found at
http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/24/cyberhate.web.site.ap/
A huge amount of disinformation is gathered about different
groups and repeated around to make it look like if they have any
validity. There may be a basis of truth in them, but there is also a
tremendous amount of distortions, exaggeration and demonization at
play. Someone searching the internet, currently, will only be
confronted with the pro and the anti propaganda, both most often then
not considerably biased. Currently, there is only one source I know
who attempts to be objective and neutral in these matters, and this is
the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance, at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ocrt_hp.htm
>on it in some detail,
>both of web sites and current and old Usenet postings through Deja News,
Usenet posting is a very good mean to see bigotry at work. You
would have to become familiar with the newsgroup, though, which may
take a while. A reasonable person reading enough of it can only come
out with the conclusion that anti-cultists are certainly as biased and
hysterical as cultists. At the end of the day, it gives little real
indication as to the nature of the group one may consider joining.
>and then carefully balance out the pros and cons. This would at least
>indicate a balanced approach and the exercise of critical thinking!
This is akin to try to know about the real nature of a group
through newspaper articles, or, for that matter, akin for aliens to
try and figure out what earth societies are really about through
reading newspapers. I doubt that, at the end of the day, it is very
useful. It only highlights the darkest aspect, whether true or blown
out of proportion.
"Cults" are hardly distinguishable from religions, except that
they usually mean a much higher involvement. But then, that's
precisely the reason people join them in the first place, because the
traditional churches have become, in their eyes, so aseptic and so
totally unable to inspire them.
Bernie
Bernie
jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote in article
<1ozaqq2B...@panix.com> (alt.meditation):
>In article <882091004...@dejanews.com>,
>ma...@clear.net.nz wrote:
>With regard to anticultists who were never cult members, their
>attitudes may be due to just plain bigotry, an inability to
>tolerate the existence of belief systems significantly different
>from their own. I'd suggest that bigotry *in general* is a
>function of lack of critical thinking.
Not every person who have the dispositions to be involved in a
cult are necessarily in one. Not being or having been in a cult is not
a warranty that one can think critically.
Critical thinking is not common at all. Quite on the contrary, it
is a rare commodity.
Persons getting involved in anticult thinking or anticult
activities aren't usually doing it for reason of a superior ability to
think critically, but quite on the contrary by a lack in this
aptitude. It has little to with whether or not the person is an
ex-member or not, even though the psychological mechanisms are
respectively different.
The anticult line of thought has a definite and recognizable
pattern. It is, by itself a doctrine: the victim is being deceived by
the group and the leader who use techniques of mind-control to suspend
the recruit's freedom of choice. The group only uses religion as a
cover for what is basically a physical, emotional, intellectual and
spiritual exploitation of the member to further the group and its
leaders own greed for money, power, and sometimes sex. The "thought
process" of the "victim" is supposed to be damaged by means of this
mind-control and the physical exhaustion. The victim becomes a slave
for the group leaders, at the sacrifice of a "successful" career and a
"fulfilling" social life.
That's, basically the line. The implied fear, guilt, and urgency
in such a doctrine is enough to "enrol" anticult members in their
crusade, whether they are ex-members or not, and especially if they
are parents of cult members. These are then out to "save" the member
from a life in the cult by means of "enlightening" them about their
brainwashed conditions. They usually also believe that they are saving
the world from the threat of the evil cults.
Of course, this all is a caricature and a bit of a simplified
picture. The reality is somewhat more nuanced and, like in any other
radical movement, they are more moderate members, and others who are
dangerous extremists.
>One of the most glaring examples of such a lack is the
>contradiction between the insistence that the anticult movement
>espouses freedom of belief, on the one hand, and on the other the
>rejection of the beliefs of groups the movement deems to be
>cults. This translates into "freedom to believe whatever you
>want as long as it's what *I* believe."
They claim that they are only addressing the "actions" of the
cults and not its beliefs, but when you have a closer look at it, you
see that this isn't the case.
>Another example is the inability or unwillingness to provide a
>definition of "cult" that clearly distinguishes the kinds of
>groups anticultists consider cults from other groups that nobody
>would think of as cults. A group is a cult because anticultists
>call it a cult, in other words. Anticultists tend to be unable
>to see the need for safeguards to ensure the right to freedom of
>belief is not abrogated as a consequence of efforts to remedy the
>effects of what they consider to be mind control. It's a fine
>line, granted, but it's a fundamentally *subjective* line, and
>anticultists, in my observation, have difficulty perceiving how
>important it is to think very critically about where and on what
>basis that line should be drawn.
This is the reason why anticult proponents and doctrine are a
greater threat to civil liberties than cults. Anticult proponents
claim that their actions of "informing" the public about cults does
not compare to the actions of the cults, but this isn't the purpose of
the anticult movement either. Their purpose is to create such an
atmosphere of intolerance against the groups they target that cult
members become dehumanized droids against which discriminative actions
are justified. Such a campaign aim (unconsciously) to bring about an
hysterical reaction from the public and authorities, not so much from
anticultists themselves (although they did their fair share of
kidnapping people from cult before, until the legal and academic
community turned against them). This is what helped the precipitation
of tragedies like Jonestown and Waco.
>Yet another example is the tendency of anticultists to attribute
>any criticism of their efforts to the effects of mind control.
>(Above, for instance, you suggested the charge of deficient
>critical thinking against anticultists emanated from cult
>leaders.) There seems to be an inability to accept the
>possibility that there can be any *objective* criticism of the
>anticult movement--which is, ironically, mirrored by the cult
>position that criticism of the cult is made on the basis of
>prejudice. Just as criticism of a cult may be objective, so may
>criticism of the anticult group.
And that's their biggest mistake. There certainly are objective
criticism to be brought about cults, but the zeal of anticultists
doesn't make it worthwhile for reasonable opponents to pursue it in
that context. Just like there is a part of truth in "cults", but which
is overall being discredited by the darkest aspect of the group, the
truth carried by the anticult movement is being overridden by their
own extremism. I have yet to see an anticult movement whose members
would have themselves the self-reflective qualities they requires from
cult members.
>Indeed, many of the characteristics attributed to cults that are
>decried by anticultists are mirrored in the doctrine and
>activities of their own movement. I'd suggest the inability to
>recognize this is a function of deficiencies in critical
>thinking.
Exactly.
> After a while, such
>> people can regain their self sufficiency and powers of critical thinking.
>> For an example of this, read the following work by Peter McWilliams:
>>
>> http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/lf2appa.htm
>>
>> Peter says that he stopped doing TM in 1977 when the promise of Cosmic
>> Consciousness in eight years of regular meditation was not fulfilled.
>
>Here you appear to be *defining* critical thinking as the
>rejection of the beliefs of the group, rather than examining the
>reasons for rejecting those beliefs to see if those reasons were,
>in fact, solidly grounded in critical thinking.
That's basically what it amounts to when you critically examine
the anticult arguments themselves. The belonging in the cult is what
mainly defines mind-control, as well as loads of other accusations.
>I'm glad you advocate reading Usenet postings. In the case of
>TM, as it happens, the material on the anti-TM Web sites is, to
>put it mildly, extremely misleading. It's crucial to read the
>traffic on the alt.m.t newsgroup to see the arguments concerning
>the purported "cons" and get both sides of the story.
Well, in the case of TM, they actually have some members who can
think, argue and present the other side of the story. It isn't the
case in other specific newsgroups, where those objecting to the abuses
of anticult members are outsider who may not have the interest, time
or patience to do a thorough work. The wave of the majority then just
makes the task impossible, and the newsgroup end up being populated
with anticultists who constantly reinforce each others' beliefs and
delusions.
>I'd suggest that one approach the anticult material with the same
>skepticism that one examines the material promoting the groups
>themselves. There is a strong emotional investment on the part
>of both sides, and it may be a serious mistake to assume the
>anticult material is perfectly objective and entirely accurate.
>As you say, it's of the utmost importance to obtain a *balanced*
>view.
Bernie
Kurt Arbuckle
Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
: ma...@clear.net.nz wrote in article <882091004...@dejanews.com>
: (alt.meditation):
:
: >In article <SULYqq2B...@panix.com>, jst...@ziplink.net wrote:
:
: >> 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.
:
: >I disagree that "anticultists" are likely to be deficient in critical
: >thinking, although this is what cult leaders try and convince their
: >members is the case.
: I personally would agree 100% with the statement of Judy. I have
: personally observed an amazing lack of critical thinking on the part
: of most anti-cultist. This is especially visible when they get
: attacked by people who are *not* cultists, or who even might never
: have been in a cult. Their ability to accept criticism against their
: own "group" is amazingly low - they usually dismiss their critics as
: somehow deluded, or still in need of "recovery" from their former
: group, and they dismiss scholars who have successfully debunked the
: fallacious theory of mind-control as "cult apologists".
I am no fan of the typical anticultist. I have yet to agree with
very much of what any one of them has said. However, I think that
it is their ideas that are bs, and it is very easy for all of us
to have bs ideas. I have run accross anticultists on the net who
were, IMO, very dishonest amoral people with secondary gain agendas.
But I have also run accross many anticultists who just live by
reaction just like most of the population does. I don't find
anticultists to be any more out of it in general than we all can
be at times. Humans have not survived on critical thinking as much
as good reflexes.
While I would be among the first to point out to a specific person
the folly of his/her thought processes, I would like to think it
is at least in part a desire to give them constructive imput, albeit
sometimes in a rather forceful or unorthodox manner. Unless of course
they piss me off, in which case, f--k 'em, they're skum.
Happy holidays everyone,
Kurt
ma...@clear.net.nz
In article <1ozaqq2B...@panix.com>,
jst...@ziplink.net wrote:
snip
> It has certainly been my observation that at least *some* anticultists
> who have never been in a cult do not think critically about their
> opposition to cults. And anyone who is deficient in critical
> thinking is vulnerable to mind control, whether it be deliberate
> or simply a function of group dynamics.
There will always be some people in any group who are a bit naive or who
do not think as critically as others. I maintain, however, that most
people whose children or former friends have suddenly deserted them under
the influence of some cult or other, can often see through the cult’s
motives and operations more clearly than the person who has been sucked
in. Why is this? Simply because the outsider is prepared to discuss and
research all aspects of the particular cult, whereas many of the victims
are trained to close their minds to anything that is the least bit
critical of the group. I have experienced situations where the victims
will maintain a contact with outsiders only on the grounds that none of
the new-found beliefs of the victim are discussed. Alternatively, the
victims will direct parents and friends to the cult’s hierarchy for
answers to the various questions, without trying to think through the
issues in the same way the outsiders have. If sects and cults encouraged
all members to openly debate the group’s philosophy with outsiders, then
some of the friction that exists today between cult members and outsiders
might be avoided.
I think that Judy and Bernie have gone a bit overboard with all their
questions. To deal with these in the researched and detailed manner they
seem to be demanding, would result in a dissertation acceptable for a
Ph.D! I wish that Judy and Bernie would do themselves what they seem to
want from others, that is, back up every assertion with solid verifiable
research. However, because I have run out of time and am about to go on
holiday for a few days (to a place thankfully where there are no
computers), I suggest that readers who are following this debate should
spend some time visiting Professor David Lane’s excellent "Neural Surfer"
website. Some of the material on this site may serve to illustrate why
thousands of people all around the world have very legitimate concerns
about certain sects and cults. The site’s address is:
This site focuses on Shabd Yoga, Eckankar, MSIA, Da Free John, Cults,
Consciousness studies, Ken Wilber, Deepak Chopra, Sathya Sai Baba, the
development of new religious movements in North America, Indian and
American Gurus, Eastern and Western Philosophy, Neuroscience, Quantum
Mechanics, Parapsychology, Ethics, Theosophy, Radhasoami, and the
original works of Paul O’Brien. If you have not previously studied this
material, I suggest that it will add to your knowledge of this subject
considerably.
snip
> I make no claims that any guru is capable of paranormal feats.
> But it's important to recognize a demonstration that a given feat
> can be accomplished through non-paranormal means is not proof
> that this *must* be how it was accomplished in a particular case.
> Again, the assumption to the contrary is an indication of
> deficiency in critical thinking.
>
> >See, for
> >example, the comments of Dr Terry Todd about the weightlifting claims of
> > Guru Sri Chinmoy, who says he is a fully realised spiritual Master:
Sri Chinmoy claims that he has lifted with one arm, a weight of some
7,000 pounds. Well, experts have gone on record saying that no human
could possibly lift even a small fraction of such a weight. For example,
Dr. Terry Todd has stated that a one-armed lift of just 200 pounds would
tax an Olympic Champion. I rest my case, this example says it all.
Kurt Arbuckle
I don't really have time, but I couldn't resist changing the order
of some of the statements from this person that loves deductive
reasoning.
ma...@clear.net.nz wrote:
:
: If sects and cults encouraged
: all members to openly debate the group0x92s philosophy with outsiders, then
: some of the friction that exists today between cult members and outsiders
: might be avoided.
but a little later on we read:
: I think that Judy and Bernie have gone a bit overboard with all their
: questions. To deal with these in the researched and detailed manner they
: seem to be demanding, would result in a dissertation acceptable for a
: Ph.D!
and then there are these two interesting points :-)
: Alternatively, the
: victims will direct parents and friends to the cult's hierarchy for
: answers to the various questions, without trying to think through the
: issues in the same way the outsiders have.
and
: I suggest that readers who are following this debate should
: spend some time visiting Professor David Lane's excellent "Neural Surfer"
: website. Some of the material on this site may serve to illustrate why
: thousands of people all around the world have very legitimate concerns
: about certain sects and cults.
Ain't newsgroups the greatest?
Kurt
Bernie
k...@neosoft.com (Kurt Arbuckle) wrote in article
<67bboc$5t6$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com> (alt.meditation):
Very good points.
In addition, I went to see the site in question and have
some problem finding what is "excellent" with it, although I
still have some reading to do and don't pronounce myself
definitively as yet about it.
If people want to see a site that is considerably closer
to excellent, they can have a look at
http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~jkh8x/soc257/home.html
BTW, I wonder if the honorable Mr. Mabel always refer to
people who chose to follow a spiritual path with which he
disagrees as "victims".
Bernie
Judy Stein
In article <677emp$9bo$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
k...@neosoft.com (Kurt Arbuckle) wrote:
<snip>
> I am no fan of the typical anticultist. I have yet to agree with
> very much of what any one of them has said. However, I think that
> it is their ideas that are bs, and it is very easy for all of us
> to have bs ideas. I have run accross anticultists on the net who
> were, IMO, very dishonest amoral people with secondary gain agendas.
> But I have also run accross many anticultists who just live by
> reaction just like most of the population does. I don't find
> anticultists to be any more out of it in general than we all can
> be at times. Humans have not survived on critical thinking as much
> as good reflexes.
That may be the case. But if it is, what sort of position is the
typical anticultist in to claim purported cultists are unable to
think critically?
If you're going to charge the other guy (or group) with
deficiencies in critical thinking, you'd darn well better make
sure your own critical thinking is in order.
I don't think the phrase is used with much of a sense of what it
means. It's a "thought stopper." In my observation,
anticultists tend to use "lack of critical thinking" as a synonym
for "belief in something I think is nutty."
In Mabel's post, we saw that her criterion for the ability to
think critically was the ability to reject the supposed cult one
had belonged to.
It's not so much a matter of whether anticultists are any more
deficient in critical thinking than the average person. It's
that anticultists who are deficient in critical thinking pose
more of a danger to society than the average person, because
their thinking has the potential to have a negative impact on a
constitutional right.
It's a similar situation to those who would impose censorship on
the Internet.
What's of concern is that the anticult movement institutionalizes
the thinking of its members. If that thinking is insufficiently
critical, while it may at first have a negative impact only on
cultists, the institutionalization of a threat to *anyone's*
freedom of belief poses dangers to the freedom of society as a
whole.
When a right guaranteed by the Constitution may potentially be
jeopardized, even if that jeopardy appears to be legitimized
because it rights other wrongs, it's absolutely essential that
the situation be subjected to the most rigorous critical
thinking.
> While I would be among the first to point out to a specific person
> the folly of his/her thought processes, I would like to think it
> is at least in part a desire to give them constructive imput
If rigorous critical thinking does not come from within the
anticult movement, it's incumbent on those outside the movement
to provide it.
Judy Stein
In article <882434895...@dejanews.com>,
ma...@clear.net.nz wrote:
> In article <1ozaqq2B...@panix.com>,
> jst...@ziplink.net wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > It has certainly been my observation that at least *some* anticultists
> > who have never been in a cult do not think critically about their
> > opposition to cults. And anyone who is deficient in critical
> > thinking is vulnerable to mind control, whether it be deliberate
> > or simply a function of group dynamics.
>
> There will always be some people in any group who are a bit naive or who
> do not think as critically as others. I maintain, however, that most
> people whose children or former friends have suddenly deserted them under
> the influence of some cult or other, can often see through the cult’s
> motives and operations more clearly than the person who has been sucked
> in.
Can they really? What are their sources of information, and how
reliable are they?
Why is this? Simply because the outsider is prepared to discuss and
> research all aspects of the particular cult, whereas many of the victims
> are trained to close their minds to anything that is the least bit
> critical of the group.
This is certainly possible in some cases. But again, the
outsider needs to be very careful about the sources s/he consults
for information about the cult.
I have experienced situations where the victims
> will maintain a contact with outsiders only on the grounds that none of
> the new-found beliefs of the victim are discussed.
In some cases this may be entirely justified, i.e., if contact
tends to involve endless challenges to the cult member. Who
wants to have to be continually defending their beliefs?
Note also that you use the term "victim" in a blanket fashion to
refer to cult members. In your mind, it seems the two terms are
synonymous. This demonstrates the tendency of anticultists I've
been pointing out, the unwillingness to engage in the difficult
task of making distinctions. It also demonstrates the use of the
"thought stopper" technique anticultists claim cults use as a
form of mind control.
Alternatively, the
> victims will direct parents and friends to the cult’s hierarchy for
> answers to the various questions, without trying to think through the
> issues in the same way the outsiders have.
This doesn't apply to TMers, just for the record. One of the
newsgroups this thread is posted to is alt.meditation.transcendental,
almost all of whose pro-TM participants are just ordinary TMers
responding to challenges and questions concerning TM.
If sects and cults encouraged
> all members to openly debate the group’s philosophy with outsiders, then
> some of the friction that exists today between cult members and outsiders
> might be avoided.
Such debate could prove useful in many cases, but in others it
could lead to a situation in which the only interaction between
cult members and outsiders consisted of endless challenges, as I
suggested above, especially if the outsiders have already bought
into the anticult doctrine.
> I think that Judy and Bernie have gone a bit overboard with all their
> questions. To deal with these in the researched and detailed manner they
> seem to be demanding, would result in a dissertation acceptable for a
> Ph.D!
When a situation involves potential abrogation of constitutional
rights, it deserves *at least* this much consideration.
I wish that Judy and Bernie would do themselves what they seem to
> want from others, that is, back up every assertion with solid verifiable
> research.
Judy and Bernie are individuals reporting their personal
observations. We aren't a *movement*, institutionalized into
well-funded organizations with specific agendas and programs.
And we aren't advocating for actions that might result in
abrogating the right to freedom of belief.
However, because I have run out of time and am about to go on
> holiday for a few days (to a place thankfully where there are no
> computers), I suggest that readers who are following this debate should
> spend some time visiting Professor David Lane’s excellent "Neural Surfer"
> website.
I spent a couple hours there this afternoon. It *is* an
excellent site, representing a wide range of perspectives. I
particularly liked the response of Pierre de Villiers to a
lengthy negative profile of his teacher, Suma Ching Hai.
Very little of the material I read reflects knee-jerk anticultist
doctrine of the type I've been complaining about. Most of the
anti- pieces I was able to have a look at were thoughtful and
analytical, going to considerable lengths to make appropriate
distinctions. In many cases they were supportive of some groups
even when they were critical of others.
Some of the material on this site may serve to illustrate why
> thousands of people all around the world have very legitimate concerns
> about certain sects and cults. The site’s address is:
Note that I have *never* suggested (nor has Bernie, that I've
seen) that there weren't any legitimate concerns about certain
sects and cults. What we've been pointing out is that the
anticult movement generally is not as careful as it should be
about defining what it considers legitimate concerns.
I'm delighted to have been made aware of the Neural Surfer
site--thank you, Mabel--and would strongly recommend it to
anyone who is interested in examining these issues.
<snip>
> > I make no claims that any guru is capable of paranormal feats.
> > But it's important to recognize a demonstration that a given feat
> > can be accomplished through non-paranormal means is not proof
> > that this *must* be how it was accomplished in a particular case.
> > Again, the assumption to the contrary is an indication of
> > deficiency in critical thinking.
> >
> > >See, for
> > >example, the comments of Dr Terry Todd about the weightlifting claims of
> > > Guru Sri Chinmoy, who says he is a fully realised spiritual Master:
>
> Sri Chinmoy claims that he has lifted with one arm, a weight of some
> 7,000 pounds. Well, experts have gone on record saying that no human
> could possibly lift even a small fraction of such a weight. For example,
> Dr. Terry Todd has stated that a one-armed lift of just 200 pounds would
> tax an Olympic Champion. I rest my case, this example says it all.
Oh? If this isn't an example of unclear thinking, I don't know
what is.
Sri Chinmoy is claiming to have exercised a *supernormal* power,
one that ordinary human beings (including Olympic champions) do
not possess. All Todd's "rebuttal" does is contradict this claim
(i.e., there *are* no humans who have such powers); it offers no
evidence against it.
To disprove the claim, Todd would have to demonstrate that Sri
Chinmoy did *not* lift this weight.
You sure you want to rest your case, Mabel?
Judy Stein
In article <349cb3a7...@snews.zippo.com>,
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
<snip>
> In addition, I went to see the site in question and have
> some problem finding what is "excellent" with it, although I
> still have some reading to do and don't pronounce myself
> definitively as yet about it.
Gee, you and I must have looked at entirely different parts of
it--I thought it had some fascinating material. Although some of
the pieces are "anticult," the site as a whole seemed to me to
reflect a positive orientation toward "new religions." I thought
the negative material was more along the lines of wanting to keep
the "new religions" movement (such as it is) honest.
The most interesting piece I read, as I mentioned to Mabel, was
the long response by Pierre de Villiers to an unflattering
newspaper profile of his teacher, Suma Ching Hai.
A good portion of the material doesn't really deal with "cults"
at all. There's an absorbing series of pieces critiquing and
responding to critiques of various writings of Ken Wilber on the
Perennial Philosophy (although several of them take very sharp
issue with his generally positive evaluation of Da Free John/Adi
Da).
I just realized I inadvertently snipped the URL from my response
to Mabel, so here it is again: http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane.
I also saw some juvenalia, in particular the list of the "7 Worst
Gurus" or whatever the title was. I skipped what appeared to be
a lengthy, multipart denunciation of Satya Sai Baba.
> If people want to see a site that is considerably closer
> to excellent, they can have a look at
> http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~jkh8x/soc257/home.html
Well, there goes *tomorrow* afternoon!
> BTW, I wonder if the honorable Mr. Mabel always refer to
> people who chose to follow a spiritual path with which he
> disagrees as "victims".
You noticed that too...
(I suspect "Mabel" is the first name of a woman.)