 |
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)
Date: 1997/09/03
Subject: Re: Knowledge?
In article <340cc4af.954...@nntp.netcom.com>, see...@ix.netcom.com (Number 3) wrote: The above is my opinion based on my impressions of reading the >>My point is that the reality of the experience of cult membership >>is far more complex than this group is prepared to concede. > that's a claim that i don't believe is true, and i challenge group over a period of several years. I couldn't demonstrate it conclusively, without going to the trouble of doing a huge content analysis of a representative sample of posts, and I dont have either the time or the inclination for that. What I will say, is that I've certainly been guilty of it myself in the past and I don't think that I was at all untypical. >> I really wish I could get a better handle on this complexity, but I'll concede that this may be a more accurate characterization. >>whenever anyone *does* appear here who is prepared to talk about >>their positive experiences, they are immediately leapt upon by >>a huge string of fuckwits, ranting OSA, clam, etc. > that also is not true. the people who politely come in to Nevertheless, you concede yourself that it isn't long before the ravening pack *does* assemble. When that does happen, I doubt many people will be prepared to stick around for very long and engage in meaningful discussion. I can count the number that I've seen in the past on one hand. >>If you want to talk about the A tendency to divide the world into 'friend' and 'enemy', >>invalidation of experience, it seems to me that you should take an >>objective look at *that* process - although I can quite understand >>that someone who *has* had a particularly negative experience >>with the cult might not want to. But my own feeling is that being >>able to do so would indicate that somebody had moved on from their >>bitterness, and was trying to get a wider perspective on the whole >>issue, and in that sense I *do* agree with Bernie when he says >>that many ex-cultists are still stuck in the cultist mindset. > what exactly is the 'cultic mindset' that they are stuck with? a tendency towards paranoia and conspiracy theory, a refusal to consider information that doesn't fit in with the group's paradigm, a tendency to elevate particular individuals above the rest of the group, a belief that the ends justify the means. All these tendencies are currently observable among critics >>If you hang around with critics, you really shouldn't be surprised My position isn't *that* contrary to the dominant set of ideas >>that all of their views are critical, but we really have no way >>of knowing how typical or how representative those views are. As >>I said, anyone trying to express a contrary view in these parts >>is rapidly set about by a mob insistant on proving the folly of >>their position. > i think that is way too simplistic. have you been set here on ARS. *I'm* not saying that the experience of Scientology can be good for you. >>You've implied Bernie's invalidation is upsetting to you, or angers Did I? I don't believe I did. But I believe I can provide you >>you. How do you suppose you would feel if you were posting in a >>group where poster after poster did precisely that? Do you really >>think you'd stick around very long to try and explain yourself? > i am reminded about my curiousity about why bernie with an answer to your question - or at least, I can tell you what I've how Bernie respond to that here on the group. He says that he's got a particular interest into the cultic mindset. What is it that makes people want to join such groups? He believes (much more strongly than I do, perhaps) that he >>particularly when it became clear that you weren't going to be That's not my point though. My point is that it goes *way* >>allowed any latitude in your account - and so were going to have >>to define precisely every single ambiguous word you posted, because >>your opponents weren't prepared to engage in discussion on the sort >>of terms that most people take for granted when they are attempting >>to genuinely understand what the other person is saying? > whether you like it or not, if you are going to present new, beyond that reasonable request for clarification to a pedantic nitpicking that actually stifles the possibility of meaningful discourse, because some posters here just aren't that skilled at argument, and so they believe that picking them up on every word with a possible ambiguity of meaning somehow shows their opponent up as having a weak position. In fact, it doesn't, they are the people with the weak argument, but they never get to learn that because they are surrounded by people who will never concede anything good about those who they see as the opposition. And at the same time, the thread becomes unreadable because it I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it happens >>Personally, I believe that without exposure to a broad diversity Indeed, but I've been studying the cult for twenty years, >>of opinion, one really isn't going to get very far in understanding >>much, and when you've got people regularly abusing and vilifying >>people for holding different views, you can't expect them to >>stick around for long. What we've *all* got to ask ourselves is >>are we going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution? > returning to judith's epistemology topic, you need off and on, so I'm familiar with the data, I know all about the negative experiences, etc. More recently I've started to wonder about the credibility of some of the claims that I've taken for granted, and that's one of the reasons that I may seem to have been siding with Diane. She's the only person here who *isn't* a scientologist, who is prepared to do basic research on these issues and post her findings. And I agree with Bernie when he points out that the vilification she's undergoing as a result of this process *is* indicative of a cultic mindset. Yes, I know that there are personal differences between Diane >>I'm not asking you to. I'm just asking that you think about Don't be too sure. I'm probably just being contrary. Next week, I'll >>according the same sort of respect to someone who expresses that >>point of view as you'd expect others to accord to you. > i think we've found a replacement for peter nathan hass, probably be assaulting clams and dissing Diane and Bernie along with the rest of you. You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||