>Ok, Mike, I have the knowledge through first-hand experience. So >does Bev. Martin. Dennis. Roland. Warrior. Monica. Joe. >Perry. Many others. All these folks (most of them much more >experienced than I) have posted their worthy opinions (worthy, in >your terms, since they have first-hand experience). These opinions >have been invariably negative toward Co$.
This is a worthy point, but there is more to be said. If you rely only on "first hand experience" then you end up in a situation with all the ex's on one side and all the current clams on the other, shouting "It's true for me." Then, your only recourse would be to either take a vote, or declare all the experiences claimed by one side to be invalid (Cf. earlier post about "medicalizing" others' beliefs). Knowledge does not stem only from experience. I do NOT mean the usual distinction of knowledge through experience versus knowledge by report; I mean that experience itself has to be interpreted through a language of practices and recognitions in order to be linguistically communicable and epistemically viable. Even your own "first hand experience" will be understood by you through such an interpretive code, and as our interpretive codes alter, what we think we have experienced alters too. Example: When you realize that you are an alcoholic, you go back and re-name all your experiences, seeing them anew and deriving different "knowledges" than before. Ex-cultists and critics have an interpretive community and standards by which we recognize and name experiences; cultists do too. The best argument for the ex-clams' interpretive codes being better, as far as I can see, is that so few critics become clams, and so many clams become critics. Those with no first hand experience can come to understand and use the practices of recognition common in cult recovery circles and thus "see" and "know" some of the things those with first hand experience know. But experience alone does not deliver knowledge; experience thought about, judged, interpreted, and especially *discussed* with others brings knowledge.
>>Ok, Mike, I have the knowledge through first-hand experience. So >>does Bev. Martin. Dennis. Roland. Warrior. Monica. Joe. >>Perry. Many others. All these folks (most of them much more >>experienced than I) have posted their worthy opinions (worthy, in >>your terms, since they have first-hand experience). These opinions >>have been invariably negative toward Co$.
>This is a worthy point, but there is more to be said. If you rely only on >"first hand experience" then you end up in a situation with all the ex's >on one side and all the current clams on the other, shouting "It's true >for me." Then, your only recourse would be to either take a vote, or >declare all the experiences claimed by one side to be invalid (Cf. >earlier post about "medicalizing" others' beliefs). Knowledge does not >stem only from experience. I do NOT mean the usual distinction of >knowledge through experience versus knowledge by report; I mean that >experience itself has to be interpreted through a language of practices >and recognitions in order to be linguistically communicable and >epistemically viable. Even your own "first hand experience" will be >understood by you through such an interpretive code, and as our >interpretive codes alter, what we think we have experienced alters too. >Example: When you realize that you are an alcoholic, you go back and >re-name all your experiences, seeing them anew and deriving different >"knowledges" than before. Ex-cultists and critics have an interpretive >community and standards by which we recognize and name experiences; >cultists do too. The best argument for the ex-clams' interpretive codes >being better, as far as I can see, is that so few critics become clams, >and so many clams become critics. Those with no first hand experience can >come to understand and use the practices of recognition common in cult >recovery circles and thus "see" and "know" some of the things those with >first hand experience know. But experience alone does not deliver >knowledge; experience thought about, judged, interpreted, and
especially ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>*discussed* with others brings knowledge. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >judith
Excellent point--I believe that is the essence of this ng, as well as alt.support.ex-cult. The reference in your quote of mine above was from (apparently) a current $cientologist, who claimed basically that nobody around here has a valid opinion, since they don't have direct experience. My point was, the list of people I named, along with so many others, do have direct personal experience of the cult. Through all our various roads, all the myriad ways of getting here, we all have come together with our experiences and our knowledge. The $cn poster was choosing to ignore that fact.
All the posters here, exes or not, have something to give. It is that sharing of knowledge, experience, and understanding that kept me here when I started lurking, and gave me so much when I chose to delurk and start posting.
Even amongst all the damnable flame wars (in which I have admittedly participated...), there is good information here. There is much to be learned. If one lurker can be informed enough to avoid the cult-- or to share with a friend or loved one the knowledge to help them avoid the cult--then this ng will be serving its purpose (IMHO).
Ok, I'll jump back down off the soapbox now. Next?
SpinTheCa <spinth...@aol.com> writes: >>Ok, Mike, I have the knowledge through first-hand experience. So >>does Bev. Martin. Dennis. Roland. Warrior. Monica. Joe. >>Perry. Many others. All these folks (most of them much more >>experienced than I) have posted their worthy opinions (worthy, in >>your terms, since they have first-hand experience). These opinions >>have been invariably negative toward Co$.
>This is a worthy point, but there is more to be said. If you rely only on >"first hand experience" then you end up in a situation with all the ex's >on one side and all the current clams on the other, shouting "It's true >for me." Then, your only recourse would be to either take a vote, or >declare all the experiences claimed by one side to be invalid (Cf. >earlier post about "medicalizing" others' beliefs). Knowledge does not >stem only from experience. I do NOT mean the usual distinction of >knowledge through experience versus knowledge by report; I mean that >experience itself has to be interpreted through a language of practices >and recognitions in order to be linguistically communicable and >epistemically viable. Even your own "first hand experience" will be >understood by you through such an interpretive code, and as our >interpretive codes alter, what we think we have experienced alters too.
This is a bit high falutin' for me. It depends what the experience consists of. Some things are just plain fact and I would expect the person with direct experience, if truthful, to get it right (is RPF policy? do RPFers wear dirty rags? Is there a cellar at the Fort Harrison). Others require both factual knowledge and interpretation and, so long as the person has a fairly sane grasp of the world, we might expect the one who has the material in their experience to have an advantage over the one guessing or following descriptions: "are the TRs used for behaviour modification", for example. One possible source of error is just simply not having an accurate experience or observation of the TRs to work from, although one could laso have that info and make a wrong interpretation. And others are just plain opinion (is RPF goood for you?).
|~/ |~/ ~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~ P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> brewed up >the following, and served it to the group:
>>In article <19970825204101.QAA08...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, >>SpinTheCa <spinth...@aol.com> writes: >>>>Ok, Mike, I have the knowledge through first-hand experience. So
>>>>does Bev. Martin. Dennis. Roland. Warrior. Monica. Joe. >>>>Perry. Many others. All these folks (most of them much more >>>>experienced than I) have posted their worthy opinions (worthy, in
>>>>your terms, since they have first-hand experience). These >opinions >>>>have been invariably negative toward Co$.
>>>This is a worthy point, but there is more to be said. If you rely >only on >>>"first hand experience" then you end up in a situation with all >the ex's >>>on one side and all the current clams on the other, shouting "It's >true >>>for me." Then, your only recourse would be to either take a vote, >or >>>declare all the experiences claimed by one side to be invalid (Cf.
>>>earlier post about "medicalizing" others' beliefs). Knowledge >does not >>>stem only from experience. I do NOT mean the usual distinction of >>>knowledge through experience versus knowledge by report; I mean >that >>>experience itself has to be interpreted through a language of >practices >>>and recognitions in order to be linguistically communicable and >>>epistemically viable. Even your own "first hand experience" will >be >>>understood by you through such an interpretive code, and as our >>>interpretive codes alter, what we think we have experienced alters >too.
>>This is a bit high falutin' for me. It depends what the experience >>consists of. Some things are just plain fact and I would expect the
>>person with direct experience, if truthful, to get it right (is RPF >>policy? do RPFers wear dirty rags? Is there a cellar at the Fort >>Harrison).
"Plain facts" reported in a language are one subset of the competent use of a practice: recognizing things and knowing the names for them. Just a bit more complexity (bear with?) The things that are "plain facts" are those things that an entire linguistic community would recognize and name. Thus, if you have been in the right place in Fort Harrison, and know the use of the word "cellar", you can tell whether it has one or not. You can imagine, for instance, borderline cases or judgment calls on such a plain fact: one might say either "I didn't see a cellar but there might have been one" or, "I saw something, more like a closet really, I'm not sure if you'd call it a cellar or not." Even seeing "cellars" can be a matter of interpretation, trained recognition, and competent linguistic usage. So, I'm claiming that even empirical evidence is subject to the "tripartate" structure of experience, interpretive scheme, and subject.
> Others require both factual knowledge and >interpretation >>and, so long as the person has a fairly sane grasp of the world, we >>might expect the one who has the material in their experience to >have >>an advantage over the one guessing or following descriptions: "are >the >>TRs used for behaviour modification", for example.
But the experience how construed? What I mean is that not everyone who has had the experience would agree to either "yes" or "no" on the question "Are TR's used for behavior modification?" Some divergences may be due to different usages or meanings of the terms (i don't use it the way you do, or think it means the same thing). Others, though, depend on how the experiencer interprets their actual experience; does the phenomenon of TR's fit the concept "behavior modification" in their experience, even if the meaning of the term is precisely stipulated? Many in the cult have been taught to say "no" to that question, thus, not to *interpret* what happens to them as modification but rather as "spiritual growth" or some such claptrap. See, I call it claptrap, because it fits my criteria for claptrap... but that's not what they think is happening. In such cases, some *others* may have some better interpretation of whether TR's are behavior modification: they will deploy criteria for the concept and see whether the shoe fits. In thise cases we've moved over into the epistemic community of, say, research psychology, where the subjective reports of subjects count among the phenomena to be studied, and are not taken as determinative of the real nature of the situation.
> One possible >source >>of error is just simply not having an accurate experience or >observation >>of the TRs to work from, although one could laso have that info and >make >>a wrong interpretation. And others are just plain opinion (is RPF >goood >>for you?).
"Accurate experience"? Do you mean, someone told someone else, who had never done the routines, a lie about TR's? Or do you mean someone who actually did them but did not experience them accurately? See, it's the interpretation, I think, that can be in error; you'd say someone "experienced wrongly" if their accounts of that experience were, on your view, faulty? I'm not sure there's a category of "plain opinion" that's really apart from all this other stuff about belief formation... They get taught to say and believe that it's "good for you", and then, define whatever happens as a result as "good". (The best book I know about this process is Stanley Cavell's _The Claim of Reason_ where he makes similar points about the teaching of language and concepts to children).
>I think that what Judith is getting at is a need for balance. >(Heaven knows, I don't want Diane to think I'm speaking for Judith, >so bear in mind that this is all _*IMHO*_...YMMV...HTH...etc...)
isn't it all, amigo...
>The way I see it, knowledge comes from that balance--our personal >experiences, observations, reflections, all come together. We look >at our experiences and what we observe now through the filter of our >experiences. This is what I mean when I say that only an object can >be objective. As soon as "I" see something, experience something, >write something, it is going through the filter of everything that >makes "I" a unique being. And that will invariably influence what >"I" is saying. On a larger scale, in a situation such as this >newsgroup, the knowledge and experience of many are shared and >"digested" as it were.
Yes. But I'm making an antiindividualistic point; it's the community that gives each "i" the resources and the forum to name and recognize experiences, thus, shapes the "I" and the language the "I" can use. When you learn a new conceptual scheme, you learn its use from others, and can use it to reshape one's views of one's experiences. A very common point about, say, recovery progams and the need for talking a lot with others who have had similar experiences and recoveries. They teach you to "see" (experience, name, recognize things) as a recovering person rather than as an addict or a cultist.
>What I guess I'm trying to get at, is that this is a natural, >unconscious process. We come to terms with our experiences, and >view them through the filter of who and what we are. This does not >mean editing of memories, like some would have us believe. This >means that we can look back at what we have experienced and >understand it. We can hear the experiences of others, and >understand them. We can hear things that may not necessarily ring >true for us, and ask for clarification. We can accept or reject >stories based on our own knowledge, and the knowledge we gain from >sharing with others. First-hand experiences of many, observations >of many, feelings of many, logic of many, bullshit from some, all of >these come together. At the end of it all, though, it all has to >live between one single set of ears. Those of the person who says >"I" at any given time.
Yes, and the "I" is found usually among some epistemic community, some set of others trusted to share standards of interpretation (even if it is only a common language).
>Ok, I'm jumping off the soapbox. Gosh, it's just so nice to >actually be on-topic again. Dave, thanks. Judith, thanks. Now, >back to our regularly scheduled flamewar, which is already in >progress B-{)}
>> One possible >>source >>>of error is just simply not having an accurate experience or >>observation >>>of the TRs to work from, although one could laso have that info and >>make >>>a wrong interpretation. And others are just plain opinion (is RPF >>goood >>>for you?).
>"Accurate experience"? Do you mean, someone told someone else, who had >never done the routines, a lie about TR's?
I meant "an accurate knowledge by experience or observation." Without which error is quite probable.
>spinth...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) brewed up the following, and served
it to the group:
<snipped for brevity>
>>bc wrote: >>I think that what Judith is getting at is a need for balance. >>(Heaven knows, I don't want Diane to think I'm speaking for Judith, >>so bear in mind that this is all _*IMHO*_...YMMV...HTH...etc...)
>>bc again: >>The way I see it, knowledge comes from that balance--our personal >>experiences, observations, reflections, all come together. We look >>at our experiences and what we observe now through the filter of our >>experiences. This is what I mean when I say that only an object can >>be objective. As soon as "I" see something, experience something, >>write something, it is going through the filter of everything that >>makes "I" a unique being. And that will invariably influence what >>"I" is saying. On a larger scale, in a situation such as this >>newsgroup, the knowledge and experience of many are shared and >>"digested" as it were.
>Yes. But I'm making an antiindividualistic point; it's the community that >gives each "i" the resources and the forum to name and recognize >experiences, thus, shapes the "I" and the language the "I" can use. When >you learn a new conceptual scheme, you learn its use from others, and can >use it to reshape one's views of one's experiences. A very common point >about, say, recovery progams and the need for talking a lot with others who >have had similar experiences and recoveries. They teach you to "see" >(experience, name, recognize things) as a recovering person rather than as >an addict or a cultist.
The community gives "I" the context for the concept. But each "I" still exists solely between a set of ears, into which area no other "I" can ever go. The experiences "I" have had will look totally different to "I" than to another "I" who may have shared them with "I". (Once again, IMHO.)
>>What I guess I'm trying to get at, is that this is a natural, >>unconscious process. We come to terms with our experiences, and >>view them through the filter of who and what we are. This does not >>mean editing of memories, like some would have us believe. This >>means that we can look back at what we have experienced and >>understand it. We can hear the experiences of others, and >>understand them. We can hear things that may not necessarily ring >>true for us, and ask for clarification. We can accept or reject >>stories based on our own knowledge, and the knowledge we gain from >>sharing with others. First-hand experiences of many, observations >>of many, feelings of many, logic of many, bullshit from some, all of >>these come together. At the end of it all, though, it all has to >>live between one single set of ears. Those of the person who says >>"I" at any given time.
>Yes, and the "I" is found usually among some epistemic community, some set >of others trusted to share standards of interpretation (even if it is only >a common language).
Agreed.
>>Ok, I'm jumping off the soapbox. Gosh, it's just so nice to >>actually be on-topic again. Dave, thanks. Judith, thanks. Now, >>back to our regularly scheduled flamewar, which is already in >>progress B-{)}
----------- "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...
spinth...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote in article <19970828044300.AAA12...@ladder01.news.aol.com>:
>>From: dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) >>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:12:47 GMT >>Message-id: <3404c077.2183...@news.concentric.net> >>>b...@arcadis.be (Bernie) brewed up the following, and served it to >>the group: >>>dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote in article >>><340e0a69.32276...@news.concentric.net>: >that kind of was the point. Or, one of the points. If "direct >experience" alone, outside of interpretations and proceeses of >identificatin, epistemic communities, etc, then *everyone* who had >experience with a cult would say the same things about it.
There are many varying interpretations, but mostly two "schools of thoughts": those who believe they have been under some kind of mind-control, and those who view their experience more like a kind of step in their overall search for spiritual values.
I am of this later category, and I personally know quite a few others who view it the same, none of whom are posting to ars, for good reasons.
One of the thing I feel about Scientology is a complete freedom from it. I would not call it "objective", because there is no such thing, but I do not feel hurt, or anger, nor any need for any kind of justifications. I therefore don't feel like, consciously or unconsciously, presenting it as under one or the other light.
I find the psychological mechanisms at work on both sides (to be seen in this newsgroup), as considerably more interesting than Scientology itself. This is the reason why I almost never comment on legal or other "objective" issues. I leave that to others who are more qualified than I.
>Bernie points >out the fact that not all agree about what the experiences "in a cult" are, >even people who have had "direct experiences."
bc often brings forth the arguments that since so many ex-members in this newsgroup agree on the anti-cult mind-control view, it represents some kind of "proof" that it reflects an objective reality. This is to dismiss many other factors that need to enter into the equation to understand it.
>>At no point in my post did I claim to be speaking for anyone other >>than myself, or putting forth any philosophy other than my own. And >>I don't appreciate some cult-apologist asshole attempting to put >>words in my mouth. Especially in one of the FEW *on-topic* threads >>on this ng at the moment. Or do you just want to turn this one into >>a flamewar too, Bernie? (Of course, what was I thinking?)
>um? I didn't think he put words into your mouth. He was making a point, >a minor point that actually follows normally out of the discussion, and one >that illustrates it?
Oh, I am used to this kind of reaction, Judith. Because they have something to "defend", they feel attacked anytime someone rises a counter-argument. This just proves my point further. I wish people could argue rationally on these issues, but this is not something I am expecting from most ex-members posting in this newsgroup. Many ex-members posting here have a personal agenda or feel engaged in yet another holy crusade. It is, for many, the reason they post in here. It makes it hard to have a rational discussion under such conditions.
>bc? could we just talk for a while about how knowledge gets made? You >could just take Bernie's point for what it is, refrain from yelling at him? > It's factually true, as Bernie says, that not all say or think the same >about cult experiences. There is, evidently, disagreement even among ex >members (laugh). Just take that fact as a phenomenon, and then we can get >on to talking about how and why. I think part of it is different >*experiences*-- not everyone saw the same things, had the same things >happen to them and part may be different cognitive schemes and languages >into which to place and name their experiences. This thought leads, on my >view, to the crucial importance of creating and maintaining "recovery >communities" (or call them what you will) where people can learn new ways >of seeing things and see if those new conceptual vocabularies "fit" what >they have experienced.
It's very important, IMO. But it would require an environment in which the ex-member could express himself freely, without fear of retribution, either on the part of the cult, or on the part of anti-cult proponents. I don't know what kind of conditions it would take to bring that about. We would clearly need an independent middle field who could guarantee that no undue interference from one or the other party would enter in the arena. I am afraid that such an independent party doesn't exist. It's a shame, though.
>I'd like to examine those conceptual schemes-- can anyone give me a good >example of some experience that was named, seen, and felt one way while in >a cult, and then re-named and seen as something else in the process of >leaving or reevaluating cult experiences?
I think that you will find plenty of that with the mind-control proponents, who now view the TRs, auditing, etc, as some form of hypnosis, while before they viewed it as training routine and counseling.
I didn't reevaluated the experience itself, only it's perspective. Training routines are still training routines for me, but I am also aware of their limits. I put them in perspective, that's all. I can see both sides of the coin: the potential positive aspects of such training routines, but also their potentially negative ones.
My reevaluation is kind of another type. For example take the "invalidation" notion of Scientology. Scn, quite rightly, asserts that invalidation "introverts" a person and makes him lose his abilities. The drawback of this valid but limited point of view is that they try to stop or prevent others to indulge in such invalidation: disconnection, "PTS handling", attacking the attackers, indoctrination and propaganda, stifling down criticism, etc. Most stem from this notion. They are basically afraid of invalidation and therefore become the "effect" of it, trying to control it from the exterior rather than within themselves.
My reevaluation of this notion included questioning of its very basis. When we are thus insulted or invalidated, we react to a picture of ourself that we reject. The ego (the picture of ourselves) gets in the way. We fail to pay full attention to what is being said because of this reaction. If the ego wasn't there, we would simply consider whether what is said is true or not. Maybe this person is right, after all. Maybe he has a good reason to complain. So I can use that to see whether he is pointing to something that I don't see myself, or if it's just a gratuitous assertion. I therefore do not resist the picture created and the invalidation has no impact upon myself, or is even turned into something positive.
That's why I say that there is always an active participation of the person himself in any such process. I feel that both the cultic and the anti-cultic approaches fail to take this aspect into account.They each represent a partial approach, and are unwilling to consider alternative aspects. The psychological process of justification that their respective members go through is basically the same. Neither group see the whole picture, even if they each detain a tiny part of truth, to which they cling to desperately. This very clinging to is what holds them prisoner. Nobody else binds them than themselves.
Zane wrote: >Oh, I see, you're Mister Objectivity this week eh? Don't make me >laugh bernie. You persist in repeating the most vile slanders against >Dennis in countless messages and then you pretend to be a cool, >dispassionate sort of observer and commentator. What a load of crap.
I don't see any contradiction about being mad enough to insult a person and still being able to carry on a reasonable conversation about a topic of general interest. Even one which engenders heated debate and frequent insult-slinging from all directions. I think it more likely that Bernie thinks what he thinks about mind control, etc, and deal with that, rather than interpreting everything he thinks as disguised insults at some individual, say, Dennis.
Giggle. Maybe everything I post, even my sig files, and every conversation about epistemology, is really an insult to someone. Or a defense of Diane! No, wait. I write epistemology off the net too. Maybe *everything* I have ever said or written is a disguised defense of Diane, even the things I wrote before I met her (since they are so similar to the things I write now!). Since I feel strongly about that issue and that person, naturally I can't also have beliefs about various topics and discuss them with calm people... (grin)
I'm not ragging you, Zane, I'm just being silly. Joking. Been a long day in the graves of academe.
>>>>My point was, the list of people I named, along >>>>with so many others, do have direct personal experience of the >>cult.
>>>You forgot to say that there are others who had first hand >>>experience and do not share the anti-cult view about >>>mind-control and the "evil cult".
>>>Bernie
>>Uh, no, Bernie, I forgot nothing. I said PRECISELY what I intended >>to say. The "value" judgements you choose to put on my words are >>your spin, not my intention. Why don't you just shut the fuck up >>and read my post, for once? Read and understand what I'm saying?
>hey.. bc...
>that kind of was the point. Or, one of the points. If "direct >experience" alone, outside of interpretations and proceeses of >identificatin, epistemic communities, etc, then *everyone* who had >experience with a cult would say the same things about it. Bernie points >out the fact that not all agree about what the experiences "in a cult" are, >even people who have had "direct experiences." So, these experiences >aren't simply empirical; they're complex judgements, made and revised over >time, and related to what communities we enter or leave and what >vocabularies of description are available to us.
Well, the point I got was Bernie's usual spin on my words--that since I found my experience to be negative, that my account of that experience is somehow suspect. Obviously everyone has different perceptions of their experiences--I thought that WAS the point. What I see from Bernie (repeatedly) is that anyone who has anything negative to say about the cult is not to be believed because they are only seeing the bad. That I am somehow a member of some non- existent "anti-cult cult" because I believe Co$ to be an evil entity.
I don't believe that our ~experiences~ are "revised" over time, per se. I do believe that our ~judgements~ about our experiences are inevitably revised with time and the addition of information. I think there is a distinction here. I am sitting in front of my computer typing--this is a concrete experience. I may look back a few hours later and reflect that this was time spent doing something positive, or negative, or neither--but that doesn't alter the fact that I was sitting in front of my computer typing. My ~judgement~ of the experience may change--but the experience itself does not.
>>At no point in my post did I claim to be speaking for anyone other >>than myself, or putting forth any philosophy other than my own. And >>I don't appreciate some cult-apologist asshole attempting to put >>words in my mouth. Especially in one of the FEW *on-topic* threads >>on this ng at the moment. Or do you just want to turn this one into >>a flamewar too, Bernie? (Of course, what was I thinking?)
>um? I didn't think he put words into your mouth. He was making a point, >a minor point that actually follows normally out of the discussion, and one >that illustrates it?
That's not how I read it. Sorry. What I got out of it was his usual attack on me for having the gall to say something negative about the cult of $cientology.
Our experiences are all going to be different. Bernie has a habit of invalidating others who found their experiences to be negative. This seems to me to be tangential to the point--how we process our personal experiences, positive OR negative.
>>Sorry. That dog don't hunt. Go find someone else to annoy, Bernie.
>bc? could we just talk for a while about how knowledge gets made? You >could just take Bernie's point for what it is, refrain from yelling at him? > It's factually true, as Bernie says, that not all say or think the same >about cult experiences. There is, evidently, disagreement even among ex >members (laugh). Just take that fact as a phenomenon, and then we can get >on to talking about how and why. I think part of it is different >*experiences*-- not everyone saw the same things, had the same things >happen to them. and part may be different cognitive schemes and languages >into which to place and name their experiences. This thought leads, on my >view, to the crucial importance of creating and maintaining "recovery >communities" (or call them what you will) where people can learn new ways >of seeing things and see if those new conceptual vocabularies "fit" what >they have experienced.
I hereby apologize to Bernie, and everyone else on this thread, for the flame. I will (really!) attempt to refrain from continuing the flamewars. My problem with Bernie, as I stated above, is his insistence that accounts of negative experiences are basically not valid. I think ALL experiences, positive and negative, are valid. All interpretations thereof will occur between the ears of the interpreter, and nowhere else. My *PERSONAL* opinion of those who have positive experience with the cult, is just that--my personal opinion. I've always tried to keep that clear in my posts--that everyone is *ABSOLUTELY* entitled to their own opinion--but that means that I am entitled to mine, too, Bernie.
>I'd like to examine those conceptual schemes-- can anyone give me a good >example of some experience that was named, seen, and felt one way while in >a cult, and then re-named and seen as something else in the process of >leaving or reevaluating cult experiences?
>judith
Well, my thought on this, from my personal experience, would be the basic TR's. These are named and experienced in the cult as "self- improvement" and "training". After I left the cult and reflected on the experience, I reached the conclusion that it was mind-control. This was corroborated all these years later when I got on the net-- but the conclusion I reached was on my own.
And this is the essence of the issue--YMMV. We share our experiences, and we often learn new ways to look at an experience, but in the end, all we have is what lives betwixt our ears. I am not about to change your mind, Bernie's mind, or David Miscavige's mind. There are times that we'd LIKE to, of course--but this is usually futile. Because what happens inside our heads is our basic, most fundamental identity, and reality.
----------- "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...
On 28 Aug 1997 23:49:59 GMT, spinth...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote:
>Zane wrote:
>>Oh, I see, you're Mister Objectivity this week eh? Don't make me >>laugh bernie. You persist in repeating the most vile slanders against >>Dennis in countless messages and then you pretend to be a cool, >>dispassionate sort of observer and commentator. What a load of crap.
>I don't see any contradiction about being mad enough to insult a person >and still being able to carry on a reasonable conversation about a topic of >general interest.
I'm sorry Spin, but it appears that the irony of bernie writing about objectivity was lost on you.
zane@die_spammers.mabry.com
Obey little, resist much.
And for you automated email spammers out there, here's the email addresses of the current board of the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov Commissioner James Quello: jque...@fcc.gov Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
And let's help you send some spam to the US Postal Service, too:
> ..(lot's snipped)... > That's why I say that there is always an active participation of > the person himself in any such process. I feel that both the > cultic and the anti-cultic approaches fail to take this aspect > into account.They each represent a partial approach, and are > unwilling to consider alternative aspects. The psychological > process of justification that their respective members go > through is basically the same. Neither group see the whole > picture, even if they each detain a tiny part of truth, to which > they cling to desperately. This very clinging to is what holds > them prisoner. Nobody else binds them than themselves.
> Bernie
A good example of the art of saying nothing with a lot of words.
Basic: Scientology recruits people into their techings under false pretentions. Many people gets hurt, emotionally and financially.
You attempt above to place a burden of guilt on the individual instead of the brains behind the scientology scam, nothing else.
There is no "partial approach", "process of justification", "whole picture" or whatever you call it. There is only people getting hurt, again and again and again, deliberately, by an organisation that the world defintely can be without. The a.r.s gives a forum for people worldwide to share their experiences, each individual with their own words.
I understand & respect that you have a lack of basic compassion, and are trying to keep a distance due to your emotional handicap. This also explains why you never got really involved in scientology. It takes a much more sensitive, creative and non-analytic person than yourself to fall for the scientology scam - and you should be happy about it.
It would be nice if you could talk much more detailed about your time in scientology - where you were, who you met, your auditors, which classes you took, how much you paid, when & why you decided to leave etc. This would be very valuable to all of us to better understand _your_ story, and maybe get better respect for you and your postings. Until then, you are nothing else but a clown without an act.
In article <34059359.3874...@news.concentric.net>,
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote: >I hereby apologize to Bernie, and everyone else on this thread, for >the flame. I will (really!) attempt to refrain from continuing the >flamewars. My problem with Bernie, as I stated above, is his >insistence that accounts of negative experiences are basically not >valid. I think ALL experiences, positive and negative, are valid. >All interpretations thereof will occur between the ears of the >interpreter, and nowhere else. My *PERSONAL* opinion of those who >have positive experience with the cult, is just that--my personal >opinion. I've always tried to keep that clear in my posts--that >everyone is *ABSOLUTELY* entitled to their own opinion--but that >means that I am entitled to mine, too, Bernie.
I appreciate that that's how you respond to Bernie's posts, but I don't think that's his intention - or at least, it isn't how I read him.
While he does have a tendency to challenge other people's experiences by claiming his own are different, ultimately he's making the same argument as Judith, ie, that knowledge and the experience of *any* single individual are very different things. If one of the goals of people posting here is to try to reach some sort of secure knowledge (which will only ever be provisional) then you really do have to take both into account.
What seems to make Bernie so furious is that there is a real resistance to people posting experiences that *aren't* as negative as yours - even when the person posting is no longer under the sway of the cult. And there's a tendency to completely dismiss one side, without making any attempt to evaluate the data critically, while any claim that is critical of the cult will be embraced, no matter how ludicrous.
A final point: while people *are* entitled to present their experience and have that respected, by offering it up here, they *should* expect that it be subjected to critical scrutiny. This isn't a closed support group for ex-cultists, but a forum for discussing Scientology, and as such, any information should be evaluated carefully, regardless of the source.
>spinth...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) brewed up the following, and served
it to the group:
bernie wrote: >>bc often brings forth the arguments that since so many >>ex-members in this newsgroup agree on the anti-cult mind-control >>view, it represents some kind of "proof" that it reflects an >>objective reality. This is to dismiss many other factors that >>need to enter into the equation to understand it. judith: >well, if it's true that bc claims this, I would think it a faulty claim. >That a great many people interpret something one way does not make that >interpretation exhaustive, or necessarily epistemically privileged.
Well, to be somewhat nit-picky here, I haven't claimed this. I have claimed quite openly, specifically, and repeatedly, that this was MY interpretation and understanding of what happened to ME. It has been *corroborated* by many here. This is purely *subjective*--like everything else.
That doesn't make it an exhaustive interpretation--but it does make a strong argument for the plausibility of the concept. I don't claim to be an expert in the field. But to flatly dismiss the entire concept out of hand, as Bernie does, is a rather simplistic view (IMHO) which fails to take into account the similar experiences of a number of ex-$cientologists, and ex-members of other cults.
----------- "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...
In a<3408e0fe.1686...@snews.zippo.com>, Bernie <b...@arcadis.be> writes
>>that kind of was the point. Or, one of the points. If "direct >>experience" alone, outside of interpretations and proceeses of >>identificatin, epistemic communities, etc, then *everyone* who had >>experience with a cult would say the same things about it.
>There are many varying interpretations, but mostly two "schools >of thoughts": those who believe they have been under some kind >of mind-control, and those who view their experience more like a >kind of step in their overall search for spiritual values.
Hey, Spoons --- which class would you put people in who simply believe they'd been lied to, paid money under false pretenses, and would like a refund please?
/; ;\ -- Regards, __ \\____// XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <u...@sunyit.edu>) _____________________________/ :--' ____________________ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ] \___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___] `====' "So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 20:22:27 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
[snip]
>The problem I had is what I stated--that of vilification of the >person for having the gall to make negative statements. Negative is >a part of life, as well as positive. All the experiences of all the > people go together to make up that to which we laughably refer as >"reality". His posts have left me with the distinct impression that
>his intention is to flame the living daylights out of anyone who >can't come up with something *nice* to say about the cult.
That may be what you read into most of Bernie's messages. That isn't what I see when I read them at all.
>>What seems to make Bernie so furious is that there is a >>real resistance to people posting experiences that *aren't* >>as negative as yours - even when the person posting is no >>longer under the sway of the cult. And there's a tendency >>to completely dismiss one side, without making any attempt >>to evaluate the data critically, while any claim that is >>critical of the cult will be embraced, no matter how >>ludicrous.
>I think that is a somewhat broad statement. I know I tend to speak >of the negative, since that was my experience. My experience, >though, was nowhere near as negative as oh, say, Quentin Hubbard's.
>Or Lisa McPherson's. When we see the "big win" posts, I for one >have to restrain myself from laughing. I wrote a few of those >"success stories" myself, way back when. (Fortunately, I never did >it on Usenet.) Looking back, I can only shake my head and sigh.
>But the overwhelming majority of posters I have read here, who have >had direct experience with the cult, have characterized that >experience as negative. A couple of notable exceptions come to mind- >- -Jack Craver and Bernie. And neither of them can accomplish >anything more than lame misdirection when asked about the more >nefarious activities of the cult. At least this has been my >observation.
There have been a number of posters in the past whose experience with the CoS hasn't been all bad. Unfortunately, they tire of the constant barrage of "clam" and "OSA plant" insults that are thrown at them. They give up and go away. Can't say that I blame them.
Even some ex-Scientologists[tm] who posted only negative comments about the CoS on the newsgroup readily admitted in private that they also had a number of good memories from their experience. It was not "diplomatic" to make such comments in public, what with the rabid reaction to anything positive that anyone might say about the CoS.
>Seems to me that everyone is welcome to post anything they want. >Positive OR negative. And as you state below, they should damn well >expect it to be subjected to critical scrutiny. Once again, though, >that knife cuts both ways. If you come here stating miracles of the >tech (bs), you should be prepared to discuss it. Not just blurt out >Hubbardspew (bs) and disappear. The negative experiences of so many >have been explored at great length on this ng. Those who post >"positive" experiences, when pressed for further discussion, have >generally tended to vanish without a trace, occasionally after >throwing out a few Elrongisms (bs) for good measure. Bernie, OTOH, >seems to prefer flaming the "anti-cult cultists" who have the >audacity to believe in mind control and call Co$ a cult. This does >not speak well for "positive" experience with the cult, IMHO.
That hasn't been my entire experience here. There *have* been some ex-Scientologists[tm] who still found good things to say about the CoS. It's just that when anyone makes any positive comments, it is automatically assumed that they are OSA, sent to the newsgroup on a mission. They're hounded off the newsgroup, just as surely as if they were driven from a speaker's platform with a hail of rotten tomatoes.
>>A final point: while people *are* entitled to present their >>experience and have that respected, by offering it up here, >>they *should* expect that it be subjected to critical >>scrutiny. This isn't a closed support group for ex-cultists, >>but a forum for discussing Scientology, and as such, any >>information should be evaluated carefully, regardless of the >>source.
>Agreed. I believe that this is what happens--on a regular basis. >On all sides. I have observed that the negative accounts are >generally accepted more easily; mainly, I believe, due to the >regularity with which we see them. And the regularity with which >they are reinforced by experienced posters, third parties, news >media reports, obituaries, coroner's reports, etc.
Experienced posters who reply to their messages with such gems as "You're a lying sack o' shit," "FOAD, asshole," etc. With responses like that, can you really believe that moderate ex-Scientologists[tm] would have any desire to hang around here to relate their experiences?
You can find "plenty" of ex-Scientologists[tm] with positive memories of their cult experience hanging around the AOL message board -- at least you could back when I was reading the board. A number of them were more than willing to complain about specific CoS practices (particularly pricing), but still felt they had gained something of some value from their experience with the cult.
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 22:30:59 GMT, b...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote: >And many of the things I point out about Dennis are part of the >psychological process I mean to show as well.
Bernie, you sure all full of yourself eh? Now you're conducting usenet psychoanalysis, next you'll be doing the Koos-Koos. What a hoot!
zane@die_spammers.mabry.com
Obey little, resist much.
And for you automated email spammers out there, here's the email addresses of the current board of the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov Commissioner James Quello: jque...@fcc.gov Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
And let's help you send some spam to the US Postal Service, too:
spinth...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote in article <19970828234900.TAA11...@ladder01.news.aol.com>:
>I don't see any contradiction about being mad enough to insult a person >and still being able to carry on a reasonable conversation about a topic of >general interest. Even one which engenders heated debate and frequent >insult-slinging from all directions. I think it more likely that Bernie >thinks what he thinks about mind control, etc, and deal with that, rather >than interpreting everything he thinks as disguised insults at some >individual, say, Dennis.
And many of the things I point out about Dennis are part of the psychological process I mean to show as well. If one mostly fails to address the issue but rather deals with a disguised primitive positioning of people, engages in all kinds of pressures to bring them to conform, indulges himself in the same sort of actions he criticize from the cult, positions himself as a victim and calling for an emotional/hysterical reaction from its reader who fail to see his shortcomings in favor of the pursuit of an holy goal against evil, then I would say that these are rather illustrative of a certain frame of mind that is very relevant to the issue of cults, critical thinking, and the search of real values.
What one fails to realize is that within a group, the common consensus can be sometimes so strong that, unwittingly, its members become blind to certain aspects. They cannot have anymore an outside viewpoint about their own behavior and beliefs. This can degenerate into a spin of like-minded spiral in which the group becomes sterile or even destructive.
spinth...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote in article <19970828234000.TAA17...@ladder02.news.aol.com>:
>Bernie wrote: >>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:35:15 GMT >>Message-id: <3408e0fe.1686...@snews.zippo.com> >>There are many varying interpretations, but mostly two "schools >>of thoughts": those who believe they have been under some kind >>of mind-control, and those who view their experience more like a >>kind of step in their overall search for spiritual values.
>Two general schools of interpretation among ex-members, you mean? not >necessarily everybody? because I can think of views that do not endorse >versions of mind control yet also do not incorporate the 'spiritual >journey" vocabulary.
Yes. Mine was a rather simplified division and maybe not quite a well expressed one. If I remove the word "spiritual", does it make it better? I think it does. Lets make that "real values" instead :-)
>You have to >learn *willingly* how to live as a recovering person, and no one will ever >try to make you do it; there are strict rules in AA about that kind of >thing. It's the closest thing I can think of to a free epistemic >community, in some senses, because they explicitly acknowledge the dangers >posed by thinking under pressure, and try actively not to pressure people >to think as they do.
And, furthermore, alcoholism is something more or less "objective", different than the highly potentially controversial issue of subjective opinions and values.
>hmm. I am curious if anyone would give an account here. When you came >out, did you see those things differently?
If the question is addressed to me (which I don't think, it seems like a general question), the answer is that I don't remember having seen things differently (it's 17 years ago now).
>did you re-evaluate sensations, >for instance, in light of new concepts and come to name sensations or >phenomena you might not have before?
In my case, no. I had very good "wins" through the process of Scn, and still view them as such. That's why I think that there are some positive aspects in the tech, even if I reject its totalitarian context and even (contrary to most freezoners) its usefulness and necessity.
>This happens a lot with, for >instance, victims of sexual abuse in childhood. When they get a *name* >for what happened, memories re-organize themselves, take on different >significance. They don't forget things and then recover the memories, at >least not the ones I know; they always have the memories, but never *saw* >them under the name "abuse" before. When the concept is mastered, it's >kind of like using a new magnet on a pile of metal pins. The magnet pulls >out some of the pins (the ones that are attracted to magnets) and leave the >rest behind; you get a new way of sorting out your memories and experiences.
That's one of my criticism against the mind-control theory. It's a too convenient way to explain away their experience, and basically a pretexte to continue in a mindset that is strikingly similar as the one they were in while in the cult.
The best proof of that is the violence of the reaction you get when you question their basic precepts. If they weren't in the same cultic mindset, they would just say, "well, maybe, let's have a look at it". That's not what I see happening, though. I even think that Dennis' current emotional and obviously biased reaction against Diane is due mainly to the fact that she was so successful in debunking the mind-control theory. Without the basic precept on mind-control, their whole universe crumbles down.
>>I didn't reevaluated the experience itself, only it's >>perspective. Training routines are still training routines for >>me, but I am also aware of their limits. I put them in >>perspective, that's all. I can see both sides of the coin: the >>potential positive aspects of such training routines, but also >>their potentially negative ones.
>So, you used to see the training routines one way, but "perspective" >changed?
Yes. I have a multiplicity of viewpoints about it now, whereas I had just one before. These different viewpoints provide a perspective, not only by itself, but also within the general frame of things.
>meaning, that you now see them as training you to do less than >they promised,
Not exactly, but I can see their purpose and value, and also how they can be misconstrued, misapplied, used as crutch or tainted lenses to see the world. It hasn't so much to do with what was "promised", but much more with the way they are being used, interpreted, by the individual.
>or different things than you thought at the time,
Not really different than what I thought at the time, only *more* things than what I thought at the time.
>or even pernicious things?
They can become pernicious in a pernicious context, or through a pernicious person. I think that the context and the level of awareness of the person himself are considerably more important than the practices themselves.
While I don't really see much perniciousness in the training routine or auditing, more the contrary, I *do* see many objectionable, and maybe even pernicious, things in Hubbard *rhetoric*. My assertion is that words, ideas, and pictures are the real indoctrination, not really the practice. On the contrary, I would say that the practices are more like the "bait", to make the person accept the perniciousness, fallaciousness, and limitedness of ideas, views, and emotions.
>> The drawback of this valid but limited point >>of view is that they try to stop or prevent others to indulge in >>such invalidation: disconnection, "PTS handling", attacking the >>attackers, indoctrination and propaganda, stifling down >>criticism, etc. Most stem from this notion. They are basically >>afraid of invalidation and therefore become the "effect" of it, >>trying to control it from the exterior rather than within >>themselves.
>So, instead of working on self-validation, they try to control whether >others give them validation or discouragement?
Yes. The fear of invalidation is very present in Scn. They think that the mere questioning of someone of their abilities or question the validity of a concept will make them "lose" their wins (and all the $$$, tears and strain behind), or will threaten the holy mission of Scn. That's the reason they will either try to "handle" the person or disconnect from him as individual. Same for the group. Of course they can't disconnect from society, but if a planet was available somewhere, no doubt they would make it their holy place.
>The first sentence here is a >little unclear but I think I take your meaning. Given the phenomenon of >the relationship of validation, belief, and performance, they try to >control what comes from outside the self rather than learning to validate >the self even against the invalidations of others.
Not so much validate the self. To validate the self is a defensive approach, something you do based on an pre-accepted notion. It should more relate to the no-self. The self only exists because I have an idea of it. If you are genuinely interested in something, there is no "self". You pay your full, undivided attention to it. An invalidation works by focussing your attention on a negative picture of yourself. To counter-act it with a positive picture is not a real solution. Better not to build up or accumulate pictures.
>>My reevaluation of this notion included questioning of its very >>basis. When we are thus insulted or invalidated, we react to a >>picture of ourself that we reject. The ego (the picture of >>ourselves) gets in the way. We fail to pay full attention to >>what is being said because of this reaction.
>Our picture of ourselves, then, you are saying, is allowed to depend too >much on what others think and say about us.
Yes, but even better not to have a picture at all. Direct perception is always superior than perception through pictures. Of course, you can't have a really direct perception into reality, because reality is ever changing, but you can endeavor to approach it. This demands that you yourself constantly destroy the pictures you create about it. It is a bit like objectivity. It doesn't really exist by itself, but one can endeavor to approach it, and to constantly question one's own accepted ideas. Or like with words, we have to use them to express ourselves, but there are certain things that can't be expressed adequately other than using the words in a dialectic and contradictory fashion to emphasis what is left unspoken.
>> If the ego wasn't >>there, we would simply consider whether what is said is true or >>not. Maybe this person is right, after all. Maybe he has a good >>reason to complain. So I can use that to see whether he is >>pointing to something that I don't see myself, or if it's just a >>gratuitous assertion. I therefore do not resist the picture >>created and the invalidation has no impact upon myself, or is >>even turned into something positive.
>So, a self validating person neither outright rejects others' opinions nor >panics at them. A person over-dependent on external validation will learn >either modes of deflecting *any* criticism or invalidation (and thus cannot >learn anything about himself he did not know before, or take the "goods" of >criticism) or overestimate the criticism/invalidation and believe that they >*are* what others say, without a constant or secure set of beliefs about >the self that could stand against invalidation from others, no matter how >weird or uninformed the invalidating opinion may be.
A faith in truth would involve the "belief" that if there is to be anything worth to be called truth, it should be open to any challenge, or it wouldn't be much of a truth to start with. The resulting self-confidence you gain out of it is something that emerges naturally, not something that is artificially being maintained. Vulnerability is strength. This sounds like a Zen paradox. It is.
Bernie <b...@arcadis.be> writes: >spinth...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote in article ><19970828234900.TAA11...@ladder01.news.aol.com>:
>>I don't see any contradiction about being mad enough to insult a person >>and still being able to carry on a reasonable conversation about a topic of >>general interest. Even one which engenders heated debate and frequent >>insult-slinging from all directions. I think it more likely that Bernie >>thinks what he thinks about mind control, etc, and deal with that, rather >>than interpreting everything he thinks as disguised insults at some >>individual, say, Dennis.
>And many of the things I point out about Dennis are part of the >psychological process I mean to show as well. If one mostly >fails to address the issue but rather deals with a disguised >primitive positioning of people, engages in all kinds of >pressures to bring them to conform, indulges himself in the same >sort of actions he criticize from the cult, positions himself as >a victim and calling for an emotional/hysterical reaction from >its reader who fail to see his shortcomings in favor of the >pursuit of an holy goal against evil, then I would say that >these are rather illustrative of a certain frame of mind that is >very relevant to the issue of cults, critical thinking, and the >search of real values.
OK, Spoons, what about YOUR state of mind? Your token answer on Lisa MacPherson is pathetic, and when we consider you are an apologist for manslaughter, fucking disgusting. What goes on in YOUR tiny mind? What did you do when you were in GO/OSA?? Dennis has, after all, been quite open with us about his actions while he was cramming officer at flag,
/; ;\ -- Regards, __ \\____// XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <u...@sunyit.edu>) _____________________________/ :--' ____________________ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ] \___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___] `====' "So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
In article <34074b22.2355...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes: >Q: >>The problem I had is what I stated--that of vilification of the >>person for having the gall to make negative statements. Negative is >>a part of life, as well as positive. All the experiences of all the >> people go together to make up that to which we laughably refer as >>"reality". His posts have left me with the distinct impression that >>his intention is to flame the living daylights out of anyone who >>can't come up with something *nice* to say about the cult.
>That may be what you read into most of Bernie's messages. That isn't >what I see when I read them at all.
Get some spectacles, then, WhatsHerName, because Barnie's intentions are pretty damn obvious.
/; ;\ -- Regards, __ \\____// XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <u...@sunyit.edu>) _____________________________/ :--' ____________________ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ] \___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___] `====' "So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote: >>While he does have a tendency to challenge other people's >>experiences by claiming his own are different, ultimately >>he's making the same argument as Judith, ie, that knowledge >>and the experience of *any* single individual are very >>different things. If one of the goals of people posting >>here is to try to reach some sort of secure knowledge (which >>will only ever be provisional) then you really do have to >>take both into account.
>The problem I had is what I stated--that of vilification of the >person for having the gall to make negative statements. Negative is >a part of life, as well as positive. All the experiences of all the > people go together to make up that to which we laughably refer as >"reality". His posts have left me with the distinct impression that >his intention is to flame the living daylights out of anyone who >can't come up with something *nice* to say about the cult.
I don't know, I've never said anything nice about the cult. I regard it as a pernicious scam, I say so frequently, and he's never flamed me.
Mind you, I've not noticed him doing much vilification either - aside from a handful of people who seem to be giving out at least as much as they are getting. I tend to skip that stuff, as it seems a bit lame.
>>What seems to make Bernie so furious is that there is a >>real resistance to people posting experiences that *aren't* >>as negative as yours - even when the person posting is no >>longer under the sway of the cult. And there's a tendency >>to completely dismiss one side, without making any attempt >>to evaluate the data critically, while any claim that is >>critical of the cult will be embraced, no matter how >>ludicrous.
>I think that is a somewhat broad statement. I know I tend to speak >of the negative, since that was my experience. My experience, >though, was nowhere near as negative as oh, say, Quentin Hubbard's.
Actually, I seem to have misphrased that. What I meant to say is that he seems to get furious about the idea that only the negative aspects of the cult experience are encouraged, and any positive experiences are at best ignored, and more likely written off as being those of dupes.
Personally, it doesn't bother me to see people slamming the cult, but I'd be a fool if I didn't recognize that the more extreme examples that are posted are unlikely to be *representative* samples of most members experience.
>Or Lisa McPherson's. When we see the "big win" posts, I for one >have to restrain myself from laughing. I wrote a few of those >"success stories" myself, way back when. (Fortunately, I never did >it on Usenet.) Looking back, I can only shake my head and sigh.
>But the overwhelming majority of posters I have read here, who have >had direct experience with the cult, have characterized that >experience as negative. A couple of notable exceptions come to mind- >- -Jack Craver and Bernie. And neither of them can accomplish >anything more than lame misdirection when asked about the more >nefarious activities of the cult. At least this has been my >observation.
>Seems to me that everyone is welcome to post anything they want. >Positive OR negative. And as you state below, they should damn well >expect it to be subjected to critical scrutiny. Once again, though, >that knife cuts both ways. If you come here stating miracles of the >tech (bs), you should be prepared to discuss it. Not just blurt out >Hubbardspew (bs) and disappear. The negative experiences of so many >have been explored at great length on this ng. Those who post >"positive" experiences, when pressed for further discussion, have >generally tended to vanish without a trace, occasionally after >throwing out a few Elrongisms (bs) for good measure.
Well, I can remember quite a few who didn't from the past, but it's hardly surprising that they do disappear as you say. After all, it's one thing to hold a discussion in front of a huge audience that shares your views. Something else entirely to do it when you know the vast majority disagree with you, but see you as representing a vile, reprehensible organization. And I think its sad that so many people who post here *can't* make the distinction between the organization and the individuals who are suckered by it.
>Bernie, OTOH, >seems to prefer flaming the "anti-cult cultists" who have the >audacity to believe in mind control and call Co$ a cult. This does >not speak well for "positive" experience with the cult, IMHO.
But I've seen him call Scientology a cult many times. Sure, he doesn't buy the mind control stuff, but neither do I. He doesn't buy it because the arguments for it are extremely weak. You might also note that the US medical establishment doesn't but it either. Seems to me that your *real* complaint is that Bernie flames back?
>>A final point: while people *are* entitled to present their >>experience and have that respected, by offering it up here, >>they *should* expect that it be subjected to critical >>scrutiny. This isn't a closed support group for ex-cultists, >>but a forum for discussing Scientology, and as such, any >>information should be evaluated carefully, regardless of the >>source.
>Agreed. I believe that this is what happens--on a regular basis. >On all sides. I have observed that the negative accounts are >generally accepted more easily; mainly, I believe, due to the >regularity with which we see them. And the regularity with which >they are reinforced by experienced posters, third parties, news >media reports, obituaries, coroner's reports, etc.
I'm not seeking to deny *any* of these, but Bernies point, and the one that I find myself arguing here, is that while these *have* happened, they *aren't* representative of the general experience that most members have of Scientology.
How many coroners reports have you seen? How many members of the cult do you suppose there are? In light of the disparity between these two things, why is his argument so difficult for so many to accept?
<340d4dba.25174...@snews.zippo.com>, b...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote: >spinth...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote in article ><19970828234000.TAA17...@ladder02.news.aol.com>:
[clip]
>>This happens a lot with, for >>instance, victims of sexual abuse in childhood. When they get a *name* >>for what happened, memories re-organize themselves, take on different >>significance. They don't forget things and then recover the memories, at >>least not the ones I know; they always have the memories, but never *saw* >>them under the name "abuse" before. When the concept is mastered, it's >>kind of like using a new magnet on a pile of metal pins. The magnet pulls >>out some of the pins (the ones that are attracted to magnets) and leave the >>rest behind; you get a new way of sorting out your memories and experiences.
>That's one of my criticism against the mind-control theory. It's >a too convenient way to explain away their experience, and >basically a pretexte to continue in a mindset that is strikingly >similar as the one they were in while in the cult.
you seem to have gotten spin's comments backwards, bernie. what many former cult members have described is that when they were told about the mind control theory, they could then understand some of what had happened to them. the mind control theory gave them a concept that helped them sort out their memories and experiences in the cult, and recognize how they got to their situation, and why they felt how they did. that is in no way a pretext to continue in a similar mindset.
people don't experience things all the same way, of course. you believe yourself unaffected by the influences. others have had different experiences, and interacted with them differently.
or maybe it's just that you have not realized that you are being controlled now. :-)
>The best proof of that is the violence of the reaction you get >when you question their basic precepts. If they weren't in the >same cultic mindset, they would just say, "well, maybe, let's >have a look at it". That's not what I see happening, though. I >even think that Dennis' current emotional and obviously biased >reaction against Diane is due mainly to the fact that she was so >successful in debunking the mind-control theory. Without the >basic precept on mind-control, their whole universe crumbles >down.
a ridiculous concept, that betrays bernie's facade that he bases his beliefs on something more than fancy.
[clip]
>While I don't really see much perniciousness in the training >routine or auditing, more the contrary, I *do* see many >objectionable, and maybe even pernicious, things in Hubbard >*rhetoric*. My assertion is that words, ideas, and pictures are >the real indoctrination, not really the practice. On the >contrary, I would say that the practices are more like the >"bait", to make the person accept the perniciousness, >fallaciousness, and limitedness of ideas, views, and emotions.
well, yes, maybe the practices could be described as the needle that injects the poison of scientology into the hapless spirit. does that make the practice of scientology as a whole somehow better?
and some practices, like the introspection rundown, or the purification routine, or disconnection, are themselves pernicious.
[clip - i almost missed the following.]
>And this is the last installment of Bernie for quite a while. >Thanks Judith. See you all maybe later, wiser I hope :-)
<d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <34074b22.2355...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes: >>Q: >>>The problem I had is what I stated--that of vilification of the >>>person for having the gall to make negative statements. Negative is >>>a part of life, as well as positive. All the experiences of all the >>> people go together to make up that to which we laughably refer as >>>"reality". His posts have left me with the distinct impression that >>>his intention is to flame the living daylights out of anyone who >>>can't come up with something *nice* to say about the cult.
>>That may be what you read into most of Bernie's messages. That isn't >>what I see when I read them at all.
>Get some spectacles, then, WhatsHerName, because Barnie's intentions >are pretty damn obvious.
Coming from someone who can't decide whether he wants to accuse me of being an OSA plant or not, Dave, I'd say that your observations aren't about to be taken seriously by many readers.
You once served as the newsgroup clown, Dave Bird. Your recent posts aren't even rational. You're just filling the newsgroup with incoherent babbling. I'm not sure what you think this accomplishes, outside of driving readers away.
If that's your goal, you're the one doing OSA's work for them, Davie boy.
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:17:17 GMT, see...@ix.netcom.com (Number 3) wrote:
[snip]
>>That's a complete misrepresentation of what Bernie wrote, seekon. >>Bernie remarked, and has continued to remark, upon the use of social >>influence to enforce conformity among anticultists. That is NOT the >>same as claiming that anticult elements engage in "mind control."
> there was a time, diane, when he made very nearly exactly > those statements. he may have intended them as an ironical > statement that came across badly, but he did make them.
You failed to note the irony, Seekon. That doesn't mean it was not present, merely that you chose not to see it.
>>> or how he >>> argued for dozens of posts (according to >>> his own words) to try to convince us that >>> jonestown was somehow precipitated by >>> some sort of mutual envenoming caused >>> by the anti-cult. and the reason that he >>> couldn't make his point was that i was >>> distorting things. shame. you might have >>> a bit different picture of bernie.
>>Sorry, Seekon, but I was involved in that exchange, too, and I >>certainly would not describe it the way you describe it. You are >>seriously deluding yourself if you believe you're presenting an >>objective analysis of Bernie's messages.
> how can you describe it differently? those are > words he used. and where was the the anti-cult, or > the mutual envenoming in his theory that he was > propounding, and that he claimed jonestown to be > an example of? and i don't remember you being > at all part of that exchange save for condescending > to drop in for a post or two, when you hadn't even > been following the thread.
I stated my opinion on the matter, Seekon. If my opinions disturbs you, you have the option of replying or ignoring it.
>>I myself commented that Rep. Leo Ryan helped to precipitate the crisis >>that resulted in the suicides/murders at Jonestown by ignoring the >>advice of government representatives not to turn the trip into a media >>event. Ryan refused to follow that advice because he was eager to >>create publicity for himself in his upcoming bid for re-election. >>Ryan had a long record of grandstanding for the media.
> nobody denied that ryan's visit might have served as some sort > of trigger event for jones.
Dennis Erlich certainly objected to my statement, Seekon. In fact, I believe I can trace his current animosity towards me back to that particular post.
> however, you yourself said that > ryan was not responsible for jonestown. and i'm still waiting > to see who the anti-cult in this case is, and how they were > somehow involved in this mutual envenoming process which > i also haven't seen.
Ryan was approached by several people who were quite antagonistic to Jim Jones. One of them was, I believe, that kook Gunderson, who more recently has been active in the "satanic ritual abuse" scare. Gunderson's the one who claimed he found tunnels beneath the McMartin PreSchool building used to secretly transport the children to other places for ritualistic purposes.
If I'm not mistaken, Gunderson was hired by family members of several People's Temple members to snatch them from Jonestown. He came back empty-handed, but covered his own failure by making outrageous claims about what was occurring there. He's the source of all the CIA conspiracy stories about Jonestown. He's a true nutcase, Seekon, and he was one of "experts" feeding advice to families, who educated Ryan.
There were plenty of others, too. The whole situation was full of just about every kook and nutcase around back then, involved in the matter as much for what they could get out of it as for any higher motive.
> and whether ryan had a record of grandstanding or not doesn't > seem terribly relevant to what actually took place at jonestown.
Ryan's insistence on taking along a film crew and network reporters was what set Jim Jones off on his ultimate course. The feds pleaded with Ryan to make his visit to Jonestown a private affair, without the media. Ryan refused to comply with the State Department's instructions.
>>> yes, bernie calls scientology a cult. but >>> he never can find anything actually, specifically >>> wrong with it.
>>He most certainly has criticized the cult, Seekon. For you to claim >>otherwise indicates nothing more than your own inability to read what >>Bernie writes dispassionately.
> doing a little projection, diane?
No.
> i find his personal accounts > of his experiences in the cult to be honest and interesting, but > even in them he does not really say anything specifically bad > about scientology. indeed, nothing really bad happened to him > in scientology, by his own statement.
Do you think he's lying about his own experience, Seekon? If so, what makes you think that?
>>> and he tries to invalidate the >>> the bad experiences of other. which misses >>> the point that there's enough of those to matter, >>> even if they are not altogether representative. >>> at one point he claimed, in essence, that he >>> had been in the GO long enough to know that >>> scientology didn't do the things that Dennis and >>> Monica and others have described.
>>> i don't know what bernie's story is, but he >>> sure has come across as having more than >>> a casual interest in something related to >>> scientology. and a willingness to stir >>> hard with a limp stick.
>>That's your interpretation, Seekon, and you certainly have nothing >>more than an active imagination with which to back up your baseless >>conclusions.
> another really stupid statement by ms. richardson.
You may consider it a stupid statement, although you don't explain what you find stupid about it. You haven't offered any evidence to support your suspicions of Bernie. You don't even have the guts to make direct accusations against him; rather, you suggest Bernie's more than he presents himself to be, without offering anything to support your suggestion.
> you really ought to take a rest, diane.
I'm not in need of a rest, Seekon. If you find this discussion tiresome, perhaps you should follow your own advice. I'm not going anywhere.
> what's your > explanation for thousands of posts - nearly as many > as you - many of them either criticizing critics or pushing > some vague anti-cult which has no specific identification > and for which he produced no evidence? a casual > interest in something related to scientology?
Bernie has quite clearly expressed his dislike of what he considers anticult activists. He's described his own research and investigation into the subject, as well as his own efforts to keep them from infringing on others' rights in the U.S.
Do you find his statements unconvincing? If so, why? Do you believe Bernie has some hidden agenda for posting here other than what he's stated? If that's your belief, what hidden agenda do you think Bernie has?
>>You can hold any opinion you like about Bernie, but you should also >>expect to have your opinion challenged by others who aren't quite so >>blinded as you've been lately.
> blinded? you are projecting, diane.
No, I am not.
> you are making the same kind > of stupid and unsupportable statements that bernie likes to. > not that i mind, since i kind of enjoy pointing it out.
What stupid and unsupportable statements have I made here, Seekon? Cite them, please.
>>>>I'm not seeking to deny *any* of these, but Bernies point, and >>>>the one that Ifind myself arguing here, is that while these >>>>*have* happened, they *aren't* representative of the general >>>>experience that most members have of Scientology.
>>>>How many coroners reports have you seen? How many members of >>>>the cult do you suppose there are? In light of the disparity >>>>between these two things, why is his argument so difficult >>>>for so many to accept?
>>> we for the most part *have* accepted that. >>> the argument is elsewhere.
>>I wish you'd explain what you mean by this response. It doesn't say >>anything, at least not that I can understand.
> we have for the most part accepted that some aspects > of the scientology experience are not representative > of what most members encounter. that point is not > a primary basis of discussion.
So you admit that the picture presented by those who would emphasize Lisa McPherson's death, Dennis Erlich's "imprisonment," etc., is not an accurate portrayal of the CoS experience for most members?
|
