RE Double-speak

[len]

Greetings:

 

        Someone please define, explain what this means.  I have

never heard this phrase before.

 

Len

[cher]

Sure! It's Orwellian. It was a meant as a tip of the hat to colleen's
attempt to apply it to Eckankar. Her information was drawn from: "The
Scent of a Cult" by Benjamin Wittes at:
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9501/opinion/wittes.html Of course no
one expected her to be original in her thinking or writing. :-|

[cher]

f.y.i.
In "1984," Orwell wrote about the conditioned reflex of
"stopping
short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any
dangerous
thought ... and of being bored or repelled by any train
of thought
which is capable of leading in a heretical direction."

Orwell described "doublethink" as the willingness "to
forget any fact
that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes
necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as
it is needed."

[len]

Thanks Cher. So when people use the word doublespeak, they
are talking about doublethink. Yet, when I finished reading this
article I don't have the feeling that this word is pointing out
something bad or ominous about a group. To me, it is a way
to classify or categorize behaviors and attitudes which can
be uncommon to most. Of course, the word can then convey
a depth of meaning, quickly. I would rather have the dialog,
exchange which Wittes provides in his article.

I can also see, how some people can feel frustrated
by doublethink because whenever they raise a topic,
there seems to be a moving target. There is no traction
in the dialog. This of course occurs on both sides of the aisle.

Mostly, as the saying goes, we are a diverse people
separated by a common language.

Len

"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B6994B7...@worldnet.att.net...

[Colleen Russell]

Cher,
You're really trying hard to "catch" me at something negative, aren't you?
I never read the article "Scent of a Cult" or even heard of Benjamin Wittes
before you posted this today. It's interesting, isn't it? Here's an
example of my original thinking and someone else's. We used our critical
thinking and made the same parallel; but we did it independently, as far as
I know. Haven't read the article yet, though. It's possible Wittes copied
me.
--
Colleen

"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B6994B7...@worldnet.att.net...

[Colleen Russell]

Len,
I commented about Doublespeak and related it to eckankar mind control in
what Orwell described in 1984. According to my understanding, doublespeak
is a presentation of information which directly contradicts other
information given by the same source. In this case the person "forgets" a
contradiction exists and suppresses the thought. That's the only way he can
handle the information without seriously examining and/or challenging the
the motives of the sender in an attempt to make sense out of the
doublespeak. The critical thinking is sacrificed to maintain the
relationship, thus making one vulnerable to relying on the other's thinking
and decision-making.

--
Colleen
"len" <sv77...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nvla7.3032$ZD3.1...@news.pacbell.net...

[len]

Thanks for the post Colleen.

Are you saying that doublespeak originated in a work of
fiction?

I don't think it is a good idea to characterize
people, place them under a single umbrella.
How can this be helpful?

I also do not understand your theory, as you are
applying doublespeak. Contradictory information,
maybe ambiguous, coming from a single source.
Then, people (how?) "forget" the contradictions,
loose their critical thinking. Then they rely
on the source of information to do their
thinking. You call this a pathology?

If this comes from Orwell, how is this theory
any better or worse than psychological
theories coming from Hubbard?

The APA doesn't adhere to mind control, and
the reason why is that the great majority of
people leave on their own accord. I think
Eckankar is but one example of people
leaving whenever they want to. Now is
anything or everything I've said an example
of doublethink?

Len

"Colleen Russell" <coll...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9kcpd7$i7l$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...

[Tom Leafeater]

Len,

I don't wish to sound insulting, but of course you don't understand Colleen's
theory. You have not yet begun to see eckankar objectively. The doublespeak
concept is quite clear and simple really. If a relationship becomes more
valuable and important to a person than facing certain unpleasant
contradictions involving the relationship, those contradictions may be ignored.
Over time, the contradictions may become submerged to the point of becoming
invisible. This is exactly what I experienced in eckankar. But I never would
have understood this while still strongly wanting to maintain the relationship.
Only after getting some distance from eckankar has this become clear to me. I
had noticed the contradictory messages for years - in fact, from the very
beginning. But my overpowering desire for having the relationship with inner
masters and Spirit led me to give that desire a higher priority than giving
much attention to the contradictory messages. I was 14 years old when I first
read "Eckankar, the Key to Secret Worlds." It was thoroughly enthralling to me.
I was swept away by the notion of traveling out of the body to inner planes. I
had already learned of the Light and Sound, and techniques to experience these
aspects, from another source (which is another story to long to relate here).
But to travel to other worlds captured my young imagination completely. After
attending a Satsang just after my 16th birthday, I enthusiastically became a
member. I remember being disturbed now and then by the obvious contradictions,
but eckankar supplied me with a rational for the contradictions. I was told the
contradictions were simply different, yet valid, viewpoints representing
different states of awareness. So when eckankar would claim to NOT have a
monopoly on Spirit, and simultaneously claim to be the highest teaching without
which one would flounder in the lower worlds in thousands of incarnations until
one day finding the Mahanta, THE clear voice if the Sugmad, I eventually just
stopped thinking about it. It was too disturbing to face, especially
considering that I was told such doubts were tests set before me by Kal
Niranjan, King of the Negative Worlds. It never made sense to me, but gradually
I came to accept the contradictions, even to the point of using these same
contradictory messages myself when leading Satsangs and other classes. Colleen
is right. To avoid the heart-wrenching awareness that something was indeed
'rotten in Denmark' I began to let eckankar supply me with the necessary
rhetoric to explain it all away, without using my own critical thinking
faculties. One can see these contradictions in many of the posts here on a.r.e.
on a daily basis. The writers are obviously unaware they are making
contradictions so frequently, which is part of that which leads to the group
dynamic seen here. Those defending eckankar ignore the contradictions as if
they don't exist, while those in dissent shake their heads in dismay, having
once 'been there' themselves.

-Leafeater

[Rich]

Tom,

Perhaps you haven't discovered that you can't 'think' your way thru
paradox? Everything in the world has it's contradictory truth. Nothing
exists without it's opposite. It it Soul that knows the commonality of
these and sees unity.

How boorish of you to say that the Eckists here ignore the
contradictions.
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[cher]

Gee colleen... then let's pull up your article to this group and corss
reference it! I think we have a case to prove Paul Twitchell's innocence
in all of this!! Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

[cher]

Now I am offended! How can you possibly use doublethink to justify
doublespeak? If the therory is sound, then it stands on its on,
regardless of what group a person belongs to.

Tom Leafeater wrote:
>
> Len,
>
> I don't wish to sound insulting, but of course you don't understand Colleen's
> theory. You have not yet begun to see eckankar objectively. The doublespeak
> concept is quite clear and simple really. If a relationship becomes more

<snip>

[Carly]

So I guess Colleen is admitting that perhaps, like herself, Paul Twitchell
didn't plagiarize at all. What a small circle she turns in. Reminds me of a
pony tethered to a central wheel. If it runs fast enough it just might catch
up to its ass!

"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:3B6AA1AA...@worldnet.att.net...

[len]

Tom wrote:

I don't wish to sound insulting, but of course you don't understand
Colleen's
theory.

Len:

That's always possible. Thats why I asked lots of questions.
But, her theory is based on the author of a science fiction book.
And what I am curious about is the diagnosis. Tom, you must
realize that eckists also have anecdotal stories, which others
claim to be false. This theory, so far, is based on one persons
interpretation from a science fiction book.

Tom:

You have not yet begun to see eckankar objectively.

Len:

I think what you are saying is that I am an eckist so
I couldn't possibly understand what Colleen is talking
about. Is this what you are saying?

This is what I am saying.

I also would like to see some _objective_ studies
regarding a term, which doesn't appear anywhere
except from Colleen and from the book 1984. Is
this fair? It is possible I have not found the source
of doublespeak outside of this forum.

Before you used the term doublespeak, what did
you call your experience?

Tom:

The doublespeak
concept is quite clear and simple really. If a relationship becomes more
valuable and important to a person than facing certain unpleasant
contradictions involving the relationship, those contradictions may be
ignored.

Len:

Well, frankly this sounds like growing up in a family. There is
a strong foundation for multiple messages from each parent.
How does the child react? Is this also doublespeak?

Tom:

Over time, the contradictions may become submerged to the point of becoming
invisible. This is exactly what I experienced in eckankar. But I never would
have understood this while still strongly wanting to maintain the
relationship.
Only after getting some distance from eckankar has this become clear to me.
I
had noticed the contradictory messages for years - in fact, from the very
beginning. But my overpowering desire for having the relationship with inner
masters and Spirit led me to give that desire a higher priority than giving
much attention to the contradictory messages.

Len:

This doesn't sound pathological to me.

Tom:

Len:

Thanks for your story. Mine is very different.

Len

[cher]

Well I thought it was rather significant in light of all the nonsense we
see on this group! To actually have an example of such a thing at hand
is pretty important!
cher..........

[cher]

Actually if you look at what tommy is saying in this quote, you'll see
that what he is trying to fit into the doublethink/doublespeak format is
really something called "denial". A new word for an already easily
understandable process. Tom has given us a perfect example of what this
whole thing is about!

But in all honesty Len.... I do understand what you mean by this!
Overlooking things for the sake of harmony is a constant in mature
family relationships.

[Dennis Webber]

> If a relationship becomes more
> valuable and important to a person than facing certain unpleasant
> contradictions involving the relationship, those contradictions may be
ignored.
> Over time, the contradictions may become submerged to the point of
becoming
> invisible. This is exactly what I experienced in eckankar. But I never
would
> have understood this while still strongly wanting to maintain the
relationship.
> Only after getting some distance from eckankar has this become clear to
me. I
> had noticed the contradictory messages for years - in fact, from the very
> beginning. But my overpowering desire for having the relationship with
inner
> masters and Spirit led me to give that desire a higher priority than
giving
> much attention to the contradictory messages. I was 14 years old when I
first

Exceedingly well written and clearly expressed.

I have a poster in my office that reads "The best view of one's soul, is
from beyond the edge looking back." I come to believe that its meaning is
that we tend to best understand a thing only after we are finished with it;
never while we are still enmeshed in its bindings.

From a purely personal viewpoint; I entered Eckankar in the early 70's from
a much different level than most. I too loved the books, the story of
exploration and the wonder of the inner worlds. But the contradictions of
what I was experiening and what Paul was writing aleniated me almost
immediately. Alot of what he wrote rang true, much however just didn't feel
right in many areas. (Especially in the lack of Darwin abilities.) As I
decided I had already found my own truth before ever learning of Eckankar, I
felt staying in Eck was neither going to hurt me, nor advance me; so I
stayed, knowing something was (is) wrong.

One problem Eckankar has to contend with is the apparent contradictions of
the various writings. If Paul did copy from many different sources as it
now appears to be so, then he took bits and pieces from various authors and
combined them into a new structure. Many of those captured ideas had been
written at a certain level of consciousness, however when combined, now
represent a clash of levels of consciousness; (not too unlike the Bible.)

When called to unravel the mix of various contradictions, the staff finds
itself making up an entirely new level of consciousness to explain the
confusion. True spiritual expression is a universal truth and never needs
further explanation.

I tend to believe that the real reason Harold decided to change the focus of
Eckankar, was first, he had no (or very little) direct exepreince in OOB
(his background was conventional religion), and two, all of the various
books Paul produced left too many conflicting narratives to explain away.
Now, in hindsight, we can sit back, compare and begn to question all these
areas which could never have been seen while we were still enmeshed in the
bindings of our won Eckankar persona.

[Colleen Russell]

Len,
Tom Leafeater did a good job responding to you. But, another point. You
wrote, "The APA doesn't adhere to mind control." I know that many
highly-esteemed professional psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists,
marriage and family therapists, and other health professionals have
painstakingly researched the subject, worked with cultists and ex-cultists
and observe that it exists. The APA doesn't adhere to 500 + year old men
like Rebezar, either. Does this mean Rebezar doesn't exist as well?

--
Colleen
"len" <sv77...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:wmoa7.234473$qv3.51...@nnrp5-w.sbc.net...

[Colleen Russell]

Len,
You said: "Well, frankly this sounds like growing up in a family. There is

> > a strong foundation for multiple messages from each parent.
> > How does the child react? Is this also doublespeak?"

Excellent point. Eckankar is like a big family (rather dysfunctional, in my
opinion) in that the parents use doublespeak/doublethink and the kids are
caught and because it isn't safe to think independently, they cut off their
critical thinking or authentic responding and become compliant.
--
Colleen

"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:3B6ADC5C...@worldnet.att.net...

[Sam]

Dennis Webber wrote in message ...

_____________
Very well stated, Dennis. Well stated indeed. I think the H.O. staff and
crew of writers are just going round and round in circles like a dog trying
to chase its tail. The writings reflect that. They seem to get more and more
dumbed down as time goes on.

RE:

>I tend to believe that the real reason Harold decided to change the focus
of
>Eckankar, was first, he had no (or very little) direct exepreince in OOB
>(his background was conventional religion), and two, all of the various
>books Paul produced left too many conflicting narratives to explain away.
>Now, in hindsight, we can sit back, compare and begn to question all these
>areas which could never have been seen while we were still enmeshed in the
>bindings of our won Eckankar persona.
>

Ditto. I think these days what gets published by Eckankar HO is mostly mind
stuff, as they try to emulate the best selling "Chicken Soup For the Soul"
series. Which is okay, as long other religions are not portrayed to be of
less worth. The Holy Spirit is alive and well in all faiths - and I totally
disagree with Harold's idea that to Christians the Holy Spirit has become
merely a person. Now that is upside-down thinking! What about the LEM,
supposed Godman? What about the Mahanta? Also merely a person? Seems to me
that's, to use my dear mom's expression, carrying two pails of water on the
same yoke. Christianity is evolving right along with the rest of Life, and
within its scope there are possibly as many varied views and experiences
with Spirit as there are congregations. And that only becomes apparent when
one looks past the door and into the heart of Spirit from the universal
perspective.

Sam

[len]

Colleen,

I originally said:

"The APA doesn't adhere to mind control, and
the reason why is that the great majority of
people leave on their own accord. "

This is simply put, where the APA stands.

It is a good habit of responding to the entire quote.

Is this an example of doublespeak, on your part Colleen?

Len

"Colleen Russell" <coll...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:9kf8sj$mh0$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...

[len]

Colleen,

There is no shortage of opinions on this newsgroup.

Len

"Colleen Russell" <coll...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:9kf9fs$dk1$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...

[Rich]

cher wrote:
>
> Well I thought it was rather significant in light of all the nonsense we
> see on this group! To actually have an example of such a thing at hand
> is pretty important!

It's happened before in this very NG, where the detractors are so
adamant about the plagiarism issue. Lurk did it word for word, and
there was one other instance that I can't remember now.

None of these was intentional copying and certainly not plagiarism on
the detractors part. It's really pretty funny that they would exemplify
their own criticisim of Paul Twitchell while all the time still trying
to deny that it's a plausible explanation for some of what Paul did.

[Paulji's Pal]

In article <3B6B54...@aloha.net>, Rich says...

>
>cher wrote:
>>
>> Well I thought it was rather significant in light of all the nonsense we
>> see on this group! To actually have an example of such a thing at hand
>> is pretty important!
>
>It's happened before in this very NG, where the detractors are so
>adamant about the plagiarism issue. Lurk did it word for word, and
>there was one other instance that I can't remember now.
>
>None of these was intentional copying and certainly not plagiarism on
>the detractors part. It's really pretty funny that they would exemplify
>their own criticisim of Paul Twitchell while all the time still trying
>to deny that it's a plausible explanation for some of what Paul did.

A plausible explanation for SOME of what Paulji did?

It's possible anyone might recall a word or phrase or story from the past and
forget the source.

But a plausible explanation for MOST of what Paulji did? Not by a long shot, at
least not to anyone who looks directly at this partial list of Paul Twitchell's
extensive plagiarism of copyright
protected texts:
http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm

[Rich]

Paul and ECKANKAR were never hooked by this exaggeration. It was only
those that believed it and were lured away by the negative bait.

Paulji's Pal wrote:
>
> In article <3B6B54...@aloha.net>, Rich says...
> >
> >cher wrote:
> >>
> >> Well I thought it was rather significant in light of all the nonsense we
> >> see on this group! To actually have an example of such a thing at hand
> >> is pretty important!
> >
> >It's happened before in this very NG, where the detractors are so
> >adamant about the plagiarism issue. Lurk did it word for word, and
> >there was one other instance that I can't remember now.
> >
> >None of these was intentional copying and certainly not plagiarism on
> >the detractors part. It's really pretty funny that they would exemplify
> >their own criticisim of Paul Twitchell while all the time still trying
> >to deny that it's a plausible explanation for some of what Paul did.
>
> A plausible explanation for SOME of what Paulji did?

Yes.

> It's possible anyone might recall a word or phrase or story from the past and
> forget the source.

Exactly. Especially someone like Paul who read many thousands of books
and had an incredible memory.

> But a plausible explanation for MOST of what Paulji did?

No. Because most of what Paul did was his own writing. 98% of it.

> Not by a long shot, at
> least not to anyone who looks directly at this partial list of Paul Twitchell's
> extensive plagiarism of copyright
> protected texts:
> http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm

Yes, with all the manipulative comments it does seem like a lot, a
terrible lie, like he stole the whole of Eckankar from other writers,
ect, ect. Problem with that is, it was really only 2% But hey, let's
allow an even bigger margin of error. Call it 5% if it makes you feel
better.

[Ken]

Sam wrote:
>
> Very well stated, Dennis. Well stated indeed. I think the H.O. staff and
> crew of writers are just going round and round in circles like a dog trying
> to chase its tail. The writings reflect that. They seem to get more and more
> dumbed down as time goes on.

Something comes to mind as I read this. Paul said that the essence of
what he was trying to convey was so simple, most people would miss it.

It strikes me now that people are looking for the hidden key to unlock the
secrets of the universe. The only thing is, the universe is already
unlocked and it's our self that has to be opened up.

All the rest is just stuff to keep us busy until we're ready :-)

Ken

[Ken]

PP wrote:
> > Not by a long shot, at
> > least not to anyone who looks directly at this partial list of Paul Twitchell's
> > extensive plagiarism of copyright
> > protected texts:
> > http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm
>

Rich wrote...

> Yes, with all the manipulative comments it does seem like a lot, a
> terrible lie, like he stole the whole of Eckankar from other writers,
> ect, ect. Problem with that is, it was really only 2% But hey, let's
> allow an even bigger margin of error. Call it 5% if it makes you feel
> better.

I find myself wondering, if the case against Eckankar is so good, why
*do* so many critics resort to innacurate and manipulative comments?
Comments like where PP said that "every chapter" of The Tigers Fang
contains copied material. (Implying that most of the book was
plagiarized).

No evidence to support this claim has been forthcoming to date. In fact,
only 7 pages have been documented, out of a book that's hundreds of
pages long. This doesn't dissuade Joe though, as it seems he's so
convinced of the moral superiority of his position that mere facts will not
stand in his way :-)

Ken

[Paulji's Pal]

In article <3B6BAC...@aloha.net>, Rich says...

>
>Paul and ECKANKAR were never hooked by this exaggeration. It was only
>those that believed it and were lured away by the negative bait.
>
>
>Paulji's Pal wrote:
>>
>> In article <3B6B54...@aloha.net>, Rich says...
>> >
>> >cher wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Well I thought it was rather significant in light of all the nonsense we
>> >> see on this group! To actually have an example of such a thing at hand
>> >> is pretty important!
>> >
>> >It's happened before in this very NG, where the detractors are so
>> >adamant about the plagiarism issue. Lurk did it word for word, and
>> >there was one other instance that I can't remember now.
>> >
>> >None of these was intentional copying and certainly not plagiarism on
>> >the detractors part. It's really pretty funny that they would exemplify
>> >their own criticisim of Paul Twitchell while all the time still trying
>> >to deny that it's a plausible explanation for some of what Paul did.
>>
>> A plausible explanation for SOME of what Paulji did?
>
>Yes.

Yes, an extremely small portion, if we want to be honest and realistic about it.

>
>
>> It's possible anyone might recall a word or phrase or story from the past and
>> forget the source.
>
>Exactly. Especially someone like Paul who read many thousands of books
>and had an incredible memory.

There's no evidence that Paulji had "an incredible memory." This is another one
of the many "Paulji Myths."

But if he did have an incredible memory, why didn't he remember to put in
footnotes?

>
>
>> But a plausible explanation for MOST of what Paulji did?
>
>No. Because most of what Paul did was his own writing. 98% of it.

How do you know what was his, and what wasn't?

>
>
>> Not by a long shot, at
>>least not to anyone who looks directly at this partial list of Paul Twitchell's
>> extensive plagiarism of copyright
>> protected texts:
>> http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/center.htm
>
>Yes, with all the manipulative comments it does seem like a lot, a
>terrible lie, like he stole the whole of Eckankar from other writers,
>ect, ect. Problem with that is, it was really only 2% But hey, let's
>allow an even bigger margin of error. Call it 5% if it makes you feel
>better.

Well, let's take your own statistics and just judge that:

So 750 paragraphs
> > X 30 works
> > -----------
> > 22,500 paragraphs
> >
> > 500 ÷ 22,500 = 2.2%

You say 22,500 PARAGRAPHS?

Now you say, double that figure?

45,000 paragraphs?

You say the copying of 45,000, or even 22,500 paragraphs, was a kind of
ACCIDENTAL plagiarism, innocently brought about by the unsubstantiated legend of
Paulji's "incredible memory"?

What do you call this phenomenon Rich? Spiritual Kleptomania?

Aren't you offering the Klemptomaniac's Excuse here to try to get Paulji off the
hook? "Gee, I forgot to go to the register to pay."

Looks like Paulji forgot to "pay" some 22,500, or 45,000 times, according to
you.

[cher]

Dude! After you take a class in reading comprehension, you might want to
sign up for basic math! <shaking her head at the ignorance>

[Ken]

Cher wrote:
> Dude! After you take a class in reading comprehension, you might want to
> sign up for basic math! <shaking her head at the ignorance>

You read what I said just a little earlier in this thread about exaggeration?

It makes me shake my head in wonder.

Ken

[Rich]

Na na na...
This is just Joe O'leary playing games as he has always done.
It can't be taken seriously unless one chooses to believe that there is
something seriously wrong with him...

http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_ugroup=alt.religion.eckankar&as_usubject=Joe+the+Troll&as_uauthors=rsmith%40aloha.net&num=100

http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_uauthors=ram3ram%40aol.com+(Ram3Ram)

Hey! I can't find the Oasis pages on him. :-(

[Rich]

Paulji's Pal wrote:

> Well, let's take your own statistics and just judge that:
>
> So 750 paragraphs
> > > X 30 works
> > > -----------
> > > 22,500 paragraphs
> > >
> > > 500 ÷ 22,500 = 2.2%
>
> You say 22,500 PARAGRAPHS?
>
> Now you say, double that figure?

No, take _all_ of the paragraphs(about 500) alleged to have been copied
and divide that into the the volume of work that Paul penned.
(See math above)

Actually there are only around 100 paragraphs that have been documented
by putting the actual texts together on the internet for comparison by
anyone. This resulted from my challenge to David Lane to do so. The
400+ that David claims in "The Far country" have never be documented.
Until that is done, we only have objective proof of .4% ! But hey!
Let's factor in a plus/minus error of 100% and call it .8% or .2% :-D