[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
new wrote: > But I know a whole shitload (in a full > sense of the word) of things that I have > found that are not IT. > It depends on what 'IT' is. What is 'IT'?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. > > Williams" > > wrote: > > > > > > satvadude wrote: > > > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the > > > > matter Richard. Any reaction to the story? > > > > > > > It all depends on the definition of 'cult'. > > > > > > The term 'cult' is just another term for 'sect'. > > > There are at least eight dictionary definitions > > > of the term 'cult'. > > > > I always use Chambers: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3gb8wz > > "cult noun 1 a a system of religious belief; b the sect > of people following such a system. 2 a an unorthodox or > false religion; b the people adhering to such a system. > 3 an especially extravagant admiration for a person, > idea, etc. 4 something which is popular and regarded as > particularly significant by a certain group of people: > a fashion, craze or fad" > > Not particularly helpful in this context, is it? > > There are huge differences between the different > groups to which each of these definitions refer. > > > Do any other definitions exclude groups like > > scientology or the TMO? I'd be surprised if they did, > > you could probably fit most New Religious Movements > > into the definition above. > > You could fit people who've bought the iPhone into > the definition above. > > The trick is to find a definition that includes > features characteristic *only* of the type of group > you want to define. Too many anticultists fall into > what I call the "anticult fallacy," pointing with > horror to groups that have a list of purported cult > characteristics many if not most of which can be > found in groups that nobody would consider cults. > > (Also, I'd love to see a definition of "false > religion" that all "true religions" would agree > on. Since we don't know for sure whether *any* > religion is true, how can there be any that we > know are false?) > Um, read some stuff on Scientology advanced programs and states? People may argue or debate what a truly good film is, or cuisine, but most know bad ones -- false pretenders to the throne. Or many may debate the nuances of what a true spritual person or entity is, but many agree on those that are not. Neti Neti. "Still haven't found what I am looking for" as Bono sings. But I know a whole shitload (in a full sense of the word) of things that I have found that are not IT.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > wrote: > > > > satvadude wrote: > > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the > > > matter Richard. Any reaction to the story? > > > > > It all depends on the definition of 'cult'. > > > > The term 'cult' is just another term for 'sect'. > > There are at least eight dictionary definitions > > of the term 'cult'. > > I always use Chambers: > > http://tinyurl.com/3gb8wz "cult noun 1 a a system of religious belief; b the sect of people following such a system. 2 a an unorthodox or false religion; b the people adhering to such a system. 3 an especially extravagant admiration for a person, idea, etc. 4 something which is popular and regarded as particularly significant by a certain group of people: a fashion, craze or fad" Not particularly helpful in this context, is it? There are huge differences between the different groups to which each of these definitions refer. > Do any other definitions exclude groups like > scientology or the TMO? I'd be surprised if they did, > you could probably fit most New Religious Movements > into the definition above. You could fit people who've bought the iPhone into the definition above. The trick is to find a definition that includes features characteristic *only* of the type of group you want to define. Too many anticultists fall into what I call the "anticult fallacy," pointing with horror to groups that have a list of purported cult characteristics many if not most of which can be found in groups that nobody would consider cults. (Also, I'd love to see a definition of "false religion" that all "true religions" would agree on. Since we don't know for sure whether *any* religion is true, how can there be any that we know are false?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you and I hope your injuries are speedily healing. > > The recent events in UK legal history regarding anti-terrorist legislation > does interest me. While I don't follow it closely, as time and sources are > in short supply, the larger picture has implications on this side of the pond. > The tensions between free speech, civil liberties, and those legislative trends > is troubling. The coupling with religion and the scientologists truly makes > it fascinating. The debates are healthy. > > I too hope the kid gets off. > > Should you ever feel inclined to write about post 9/11 changes in civil > liberties and increased governmental surveillance I would surely read > with interest. Should you encounter articles regarding these issues, > pointing me in their direction would be appreciated. The reports I have > read in our press gives the impression of a very visible rise in video > cameras in public spaces in the UK. My impression is this is steadily > growing on a much less obvious and overt level in the US. These trends > disturb me. > Observing the differences involved and the tenor of the debate hopefully > gives me some greater degree of cultural perspective. I live in the US. It > is my home. We Yanks like to think we are believers in liberty. I sometimes > wonder if a slowly creeping loss of liberty, on several levels, isn't more > insidious than sudden forfeiture. Mindfully monitoring those changes > may be a way of turning the trend. > > Again, my best healing thoughts go your way. Thanks man, much appreciated. I am indeed healing well and should make be able to make the most of the summer, should we actually get one this year. I'm a bit pushed for time today but will try to reply soonn, especially about our surveillance society, will also keep an eye on the press here for any articles that may interest you. The government is in trouble at the moment, and may have to scale down it's latest anti-terror legislation, or they may make it worse in a bid to win votes by being "tough on crime". If the scientology kid gets actually charged with this "crime" I'm sure there will be demonstrations outside parliament, and I will be there! > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 > > wrote: > > > > > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter Richard. Any > > reaction to the story? > > > Strong feelings on the issues involved? > > > > Sure Satvadude, I posted without thinking a bit of context might > > be nice. There is quite a bit of back story. > > > > Basically there are two stories here. First is the group > > themselves I find scientologists fascinating, their group > > is actually pretty much the same as TM, a lot of similar > > concepts like enlightenment, which they call being "Clear" > > and techniques to remove deep stress, "auditing". But there > > is a lot that is different to the TMO, they appear to be > > very aggressive towards nay-sayers, particularly ex-members, > > apparently you have to pay to do an exit course or other > > scientologists are instructed never to speak to you again, > > even family members. You also have to have been a member for > > quite a while before you find out the whole of Ron Hubbards > > scripture, namely that we are descended from aliens that came > > to Earth millions of years ago. They deny all this by the way, > > and they would probably contact me threatening legal advice if > > they read it. So all I can say is I don't know if it's true but > > it fascinates me. I'vealways thought there must be something > > to it or why would people learn? If it wasn't so expensive > > I would join just to see what it's like being in a different > > cult. > > > > People don't like being called cult members. That's the other > > story, being allowed to call a closed secretive religious group, > > that allegedly persecutes its ex-members, a cult is apparently > > illegal. This is recent UK legal history that may not interest > > you but it's causing a storm over here. Since 9/11 the government > > have introduced all sorts of anti-terrorist legislation but it > > gets abused to stop anyone doing anything. > > > > Richard Dawkins started a debate on whether religion is > > an outdated concept, and even a dangerous one, and that > > maybe the countries religious leaders may want to explain > > and justify their beliefs and right to teach others what he > > sees as outdated and useless dogma. The government, trying > > to counter rising Islamophobia, then made it illegal to > > criticise religion, hence the kid getting arrested. All > > this has enlivened debate no end, with the religious > > claiming the right not to have deeply held beliefs > > criticised and the athiests saying why not? It's only > > a meme, a collection of ideas isn't it? I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
Thank you and I hope your injuries are speedily healing. The recent events in UK legal history regarding anti-terrorist legislation does interest me. While I don't follow it closely, as time and sources are in short supply, the larger picture has implications on this side of the pond. The tensions between free speech, civil liberties, and those legislative trends is troubling. The coupling with religion and the scientologists truly makes it fascinating. The debates are healthy. I too hope the kid gets off. Should you ever feel inclined to write about post 9/11 changes in civil liberties and increased governmental surveillance I would surely read with interest. Should you encounter articles regarding these issues, pointing me in their direction would be appreciated. The reports I have read in our press gives the impression of a very visible rise in video cameras in public spaces in the UK. My impression is this is steadily growing on a much less obvious and overt level in the US. These trends disturb me. Observing the differences involved and the tenor of the debate hopefully gives me some greater degree of cultural perspective. I live in the US. It is my home. We Yanks like to think we are believers in liberty. I sometimes wonder if a slowly creeping loss of liberty, on several levels, isn't more insidious than sudden forfeiture. Mindfully monitoring those changes may be a way of turning the trend. Again, my best healing thoughts go your way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 > wrote: > > > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter Richard. Any > reaction to the story? > > Strong feelings on the issues involved? > > Sure Satvadude, I posted without thinking a bit of context might > be nice. There is quite a bit of back story. > > Basically there are two stories here. First is the group > themselves I find scientologists fascinating, their group > is actually pretty much the same as TM, a lot of similar > concepts like enlightenment, which they call being "Clear" > and techniques to remove deep stress, "auditing". But there > is a lot that is different to the TMO, they appear to be > very aggressive towards nay-sayers, particularly ex-members, > apparently you have to pay to do an exit course or other > scientologists are instructed never to speak to you again, > even family members. You also have to have been a member for > quite a while before you find out the whole of Ron Hubbards > scripture, namely that we are descended from aliens that came > to Earth millions of years ago. They deny all this by the way, > and they would probably contact me threatening legal advice if > they read it. So all I can say is I don't know if it's true but > it fascinates me. I'vealways thought there must be something > to it or why would people learn? If it wasn't so expensive > I would join just to see what it's like being in a different > cult. > > People don't like being called cult members. That's the other > story, being allowed to call a closed secretive religious group, > that allegedly persecutes its ex-members, a cult is apparently > illegal. This is recent UK legal history that may not interest > you but it's causing a storm over here. Since 9/11 the government > have introduced all sorts of anti-terrorist legislation but it > gets abused to stop anyone doing anything. > > Richard Dawkins started a debate on whether religion is > an outdated concept, and even a dangerous one, and that > maybe the countries religious leaders may want to explain > and justify their beliefs and right to teach others what he > sees as outdated and useless dogma. The government, trying > to counter rising Islamophobia, then made it illegal to > criticise religion, hence the kid getting arrested. All > this has enlivened debate no end, with the religious > claiming the right not to have deeply held beliefs > criticised and the athiests saying why not? It's only > a meme, a collection of ideas isn't it? I think it's > an essential debate and very healthy. Peoples opinions > of my ideas doesn't bother me, others get very sensitive > so the debate is mostly rather civilised and respectful, > though obviously tense at times. It's all good fun but > I doubt anyones opinion will change, you can't reason > someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. > > I hope this kid gets let off, it's totally ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" > > > to describe the Church of Scientology. > > > > > > The unnamed youth was served the summons by City of London > > > police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite > > > the London headquarters of the controversial religion. > > > > > > Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, w
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
Hugo wrote: > No Oscars then ;-) > > I had a skim through and it looked like a very literal > interpretation, and somewhat overcooking the deadness > of the people of the new world, or maybe that's just > bad acting. > There was also a 1998 version with Leonard Nimoy which occasionally plays on TV: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145600/ Not only that I turned the Flash video into a DVD and watched it on my HD set so it was a little like watching it with Vaseline smeared on my glasses. No, neither version would win any Oscars. :) I also have the old 1950's BBC production of "1984" which in some ways is more true to the book than the one done in the 1980's with John Hurt and Richard Burton.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > > > Yesterday I mentioned the BBC 1980 "Brave New World" which can be > > > found on Google (both US and UK): > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3536993421073315692 > > > It is startling to see how close we've come to the "Brave New > > > World." > > > Think about how many store clerks these days actually behave like > > > the "Gammas" in the show. > > > > Thanks for the link! I had no idea the there was a > > movie of BNW, it's always been one of my favourite books, > > I used to try and explain to people why most of it had > > already come true, but they never got it. > > A warning. I downloaded it and started watching > it last night, and then checked out its entry on > the IMDB, where the general consensus among > reviewers was, "Arguably the worst film ever made > of a novel." They have a point. The acting and > dialogue are wooden and forced, and the profundity > of some of Huxley's concepts have been lowered to > the lowest common denominator. > > I may or may not finish it. It's of interest pri- > marily if you knew the novel and want a short > "refresher course" in its concepts. But at the > same time it's a little like preparing your > high school book report by reading a Classics > Comic Book of "War and Peace" instead of reading > the novel. No Oscars then ;-) I had a skim through and it looked like a very literal interpretation, and somewhat overcooking the deadness of the people of the new world, or maybe that's just bad acting.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > Yesterday I mentioned the BBC 1980 "Brave New World" which can be > > found on Google (both US and UK): > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3536993421073315692 > > It is startling to see how close we've come to the "Brave New > > World." > > Think about how many store clerks these days actually behave like > > the "Gammas" in the show. > > Thanks for the link! I had no idea the there was a > movie of BNW, it's always been one of my favourite books, > I used to try and explain to people why most of it had > already come true, but they never got it. A warning. I downloaded it and started watching it last night, and then checked out its entry on the IMDB, where the general consensus among reviewers was, "Arguably the worst film ever made of a novel." They have a point. The acting and dialogue are wooden and forced, and the profundity of some of Huxley's concepts have been lowered to the lowest common denominator. I may or may not finish it. It's of interest pri- marily if you knew the novel and want a short "refresher course" in its concepts. But at the same time it's a little like preparing your high school book report by reading a Classics Comic Book of "War and Peace" instead of reading the novel.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hugo wrote: > > Manchurian candidate styule brain-washing yes, > > but general group conformity can make a True Believer > > out of most. People like to fit in and they sooner they > > pick up the lingo the better. I heard many people say > > they cringed at using terms like Nature Support when > > they first moved into academies but they soon got the > > hang of it. The more isloated you are from old friends > > and "normal" society the quicker it will happen. > > > > If I was classifying NRMs I would put the TMO down as > > cult-lite: crazy but happy, though rather expensive. > One has to stand back and take a look at society and how much > "predictive programming" goes on. There is definitely quite a bit more > these days than there was 30 years ago. Even 20 years ago people might > cry "foul" at some TV ads that were a little pushy or attempted such > programming. Nowadays it is like a scene out of some science fiction > movie. They present to folks in both the ads and in the shows how you > are supposed to act and buy. This washes over the 20% of us who > actually think and maybe even giggle at some of their attempts. The > most effective way to counteract them is to mock them through satire. > > The problem comes when I talk to someone who has totally bought "the > lie" and don't know where or even if you want to attempt to deprogram > them. They might even become agitated or violent as a result. I was > sitting the other day at Starbucks chatting with a former Starbucks > employee who now works at a gun shop. Another guy sitting nearby jumped > into our conversation. I noted that his comments were rather right > leaning and I figured he didn't know that the kid from the gun shop is > actually fairly liberal. It was actually kind of funny to tread lightly > around some subjects. > > Yesterday I mentioned the BBC 1980 "Brave New World" which can be found > on Google (both US and UK): > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3536993421073315692 > It is startling to see how close we've come to the "Brave New World." > Think about how many store clerks these days actually behave like the > "Gammas" in the show. > Thanks for the link! I had no idea the there was a movie of BNW, it's always been one of my favourite books, I used to try and explain to people why most of it had already come true, but they never got it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > However, it should be pointed out that the > > > idea of 'brainwashing' or 'mind control, > > > vis a vis, 'cults' has almost been totally > > > discredited. > > > > Richard Hughes wrote: > > ...general group conformity can make a True > > Believer out of most. > > > If that was the case, we could use 'group > conformity' methods in U.S. prisons and reform > all the criminals. But that hasn't been the > case. 'Brainwashing' or 'mind control, has almost > been totally discredited. It wouldn't e something you could use as the prisoners would be more likely to respect and learn from each other, which is almost certainly what does happen. Aspiring to be in with the in crowd is what I'm talking about here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
> > However, it should be pointed out that the > > idea of 'brainwashing' or 'mind control, > > vis a vis, 'cults' has almost been totally > > discredited. > > Richard Hughes wrote: > ...general group conformity can make a True > Believer out of most. > If that was the case, we could use 'group conformity' methods in U.S. prisons and reform all the criminals. But that hasn't been the case. 'Brainwashing' or 'mind control, has almost been totally discredited.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
Hugo wrote: > Manchurian candidate styule brain-washing yes, > but general group conformity can make a True Believer > out of most. People like to fit in and they sooner they > pick up the lingo the better. I heard many people say > they cringed at using terms like Nature Support when > they first moved into academies but they soon got the > hang of it. The more isloated you are from old friends > and "normal" society the quicker it will happen. > > If I was classifying NRMs I would put the TMO down as > cult-lite: crazy but happy, though rather expensive. One has to stand back and take a look at society and how much "predictive programming" goes on. There is definitely quite a bit more these days than there was 30 years ago. Even 20 years ago people might cry "foul" at some TV ads that were a little pushy or attempted such programming. Nowadays it is like a scene out of some science fiction movie. They present to folks in both the ads and in the shows how you are supposed to act and buy. This washes over the 20% of us who actually think and maybe even giggle at some of their attempts. The most effective way to counteract them is to mock them through satire. The problem comes when I talk to someone who has totally bought "the lie" and don't know where or even if you want to attempt to deprogram them. They might even become agitated or violent as a result. I was sitting the other day at Starbucks chatting with a former Starbucks employee who now works at a gun shop. Another guy sitting nearby jumped into our conversation. I noted that his comments were rather right leaning and I figured he didn't know that the kid from the gun shop is actually fairly liberal. It was actually kind of funny to tread lightly around some subjects. Yesterday I mentioned the BBC 1980 "Brave New World" which can be found on Google (both US and UK): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3536993421073315692 It is startling to see how close we've come to the "Brave New World." Think about how many store clerks these days actually behave like the "Gammas" in the show.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > satvadude wrote: > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the > > matter Richard. Any reaction to the story? > > > It all depends on the definition of 'cult'. > > The term 'cult' is just another term for 'sect'. > There are at least eight dictionary definitions > of the term 'cult'. I always use Chambers: http://tinyurl.com/3gb8wz Do any other definitions exclude groups like scientology or the TMO? I'd be surprised if they did, you could probably fit most New Religious Movements into the definition above. > Apparently, the United States does not have a > classification for cults in its legal system. > > From what I've read, no one has as yet been > able to define 'cult' in any meaningful way. > However, it should be pointed out that the > idea of 'brainwashing' or 'mind control, > vis a vis, 'cults' has almost been totally > discredited. Manchurian candidate styule brain-washing yes, but general group conformity can make a True Believer out of most. People like to fit in and they sooner they pick up the lingo the better. I heard many people say they cringed at using terms like Nature Support when they first moved into academies but they soon got the hang of it. The more isloated you are from old friends and "normal" society the quicker it will happen. If I was classifying NRMs I would put the TMO down as cult-lite: crazy but happy, though rather expensive.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
In Lifton's model, as I understand it, there is a continuum of influence. He mentions 8 principles and most social institutions use a few. It is when you get all 8 cylinders cranking that we can see some huge shifts of beliefs in a person. A child who is made to believe that it is his duty to kill his neighbors and even his family in Africa. We need to understand more about this process that starts with an advertising slogan for the latest soft drink and ends is genocide. We are social primates and are just beginning to understand how connected our webs of belief are to each other, and how much of it is transfered below our conscious rational minds. Religions have fought the growth of this understanding and protected groups whose policies are designed to bypass critical examination. I have no problem with people choosing beliefs that I consider wacky. But I want people to have a chance to evaluate the claims without undue influence. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > However, it should be pointed out that the > > > idea of 'brainwashing' or 'mind control, > > > vis a vis, 'cults' has almost been totally > > > discredited. > > > > By whom? Want a nice example? The child solders of > > Africa. > > > > It is not completely understood like much of modern > > understanding of > > the mind. But coercive persuasion and thought > > reform as detailed in > > Lifton's work are an important piece in our > > understanding of the > > relationship of our social and private mental > > natures. > > > > Of course specific cases can be shot full of holes > > in a court of law > > as does almost every theory of the soft sciences > > every day. That has > > nothing to do with its scientific usefulness as a > > theory to help us > > understand ourselves better. > > I agree with Curtis here. The original idea of > brainwashing or mind control was the complete and > total influence over another's behavior, thought and > emotion. That just doesn't occur. However, there can > be a very powerful influence in these domains. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. > > Williams" > > wrote: > > > > > > satvadude wrote: > > > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the > > > > matter Richard. Any reaction to the story? > > > > > > > It all depends on the definition of 'cult'. > > > > > > The term 'cult' is just another term for 'sect'. > > > There are at least eight dictionary definitions > > > of the term 'cult'. > > > > > > Apparently, the United States does not have a > > > classification for cults in its legal system. > > > > > > From what I've read, no one has as yet been > > > able to define 'cult' in any meaningful way. > > > > > > However, it should be pointed out that the > > > idea of 'brainwashing' or 'mind control, > > > vis a vis, 'cults' has almost been totally > > > discredited. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
--- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, it should be pointed out that the > > idea of 'brainwashing' or 'mind control, > > vis a vis, 'cults' has almost been totally > > discredited. > > By whom? Want a nice example? The child solders of > Africa. > > It is not completely understood like much of modern > understanding of > the mind. But coercive persuasion and thought > reform as detailed in > Lifton's work are an important piece in our > understanding of the > relationship of our social and private mental > natures. > > Of course specific cases can be shot full of holes > in a court of law > as does almost every theory of the soft sciences > every day. That has > nothing to do with its scientific usefulness as a > theory to help us > understand ourselves better. I agree with Curtis here. The original idea of brainwashing or mind control was the complete and total influence over another's behavior, thought and emotion. That just doesn't occur. However, there can be a very powerful influence in these domains. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. > Williams" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > satvadude wrote: > > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the > > > matter Richard. Any reaction to the story? > > > > > It all depends on the definition of 'cult'. > > > > The term 'cult' is just another term for 'sect'. > > There are at least eight dictionary definitions > > of the term 'cult'. > > > > Apparently, the United States does not have a > > classification for cults in its legal system. > > > > From what I've read, no one has as yet been > > able to define 'cult' in any meaningful way. > > > > However, it should be pointed out that the > > idea of 'brainwashing' or 'mind control, > > vis a vis, 'cults' has almost been totally > > discredited. > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
> However, it should be pointed out that the > idea of 'brainwashing' or 'mind control, > vis a vis, 'cults' has almost been totally > discredited. By whom? Want a nice example? The child solders of Africa. It is not completely understood like much of modern understanding of the mind. But coercive persuasion and thought reform as detailed in Lifton's work are an important piece in our understanding of the relationship of our social and private mental natures. Of course specific cases can be shot full of holes in a court of law as does almost every theory of the soft sciences every day. That has nothing to do with its scientific usefulness as a theory to help us understand ourselves better. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > satvadude wrote: > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the > > matter Richard. Any reaction to the story? > > > It all depends on the definition of 'cult'. > > The term 'cult' is just another term for 'sect'. > There are at least eight dictionary definitions > of the term 'cult'. > > Apparently, the United States does not have a > classification for cults in its legal system. > > From what I've read, no one has as yet been > able to define 'cult' in any meaningful way. > > However, it should be pointed out that the > idea of 'brainwashing' or 'mind control, > vis a vis, 'cults' has almost been totally > discredited. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
TurquoiseB wrote: > My feeling is that they should just suck it up > and admit to being a cult, and find a way to be > proud of it. Trying to suppress others who call > them a cult only makes them more of a cult. > So, exactly, what is a 'cult'?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
satvadude wrote: > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the > matter Richard. Any reaction to the story? > It all depends on the definition of 'cult'. The term 'cult' is just another term for 'sect'. There are at least eight dictionary definitions of the term 'cult'. Apparently, the United States does not have a classification for cults in its legal system. >From what I've read, no one has as yet been able to define 'cult' in any meaningful way. However, it should be pointed out that the idea of 'brainwashing' or 'mind control, vis a vis, 'cults' has almost been totally discredited.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I pretty much agree with what Hugo said here. The > Scientologists are an interesting study in the > dynamics of and the evolution of cults. > > On the one hand, they are majorly persecuted and > looked down upon. In some areas (especially Holly- > wood), it is OK to say things about Scientologists > that you would be lynched for if you said them > about Jews or Christians or Hindus. > > On the other hand, few organizations in human > history better deserve the title "cult." > > I find the idea of them being "proactive" and > trying to bribe the police to prevent anyone > from calling them a cult in public to be about > as cultlike behavior as could possibly exist > on the planet. > > My feeling is that they should just suck it up > and admit to being a cult, and find a way to be > proud of it. Trying to suppress others who call > them a cult only makes them more of a cult. > Part of me thought it strange that they actually get people demonstrating outside there headquarters it's almost like a new generation has to have something to protest against. But then you look behind the headlines at the amount of people who have died as a result of their no-psychiatrist policy and all the families destroyed and you wonder what they are playing at, do they have to be so dogmatic? It can't be endearing them to anyone. Probably why they get so heavy with dissenters. A lot of my interest in them comes from the fact I nearly got involved. A freind lent me Dianetics, Hubbards book on how to gain perfection in life (yes, it's all eerily familiar) which sounded really plausible to me, I could see how deep stress could hang around and make me unhappy, so we planned to go and stay at their HQ near London for a bit of work-study, luckily for us Hubbard died before we could arrange it and all the stories came out about his cocaine addiction and uniform fetish and the appalling way people got treated in his "navy". A lucky escape, though I like to think I would have remained aloof to it, like I did with a lot of TM beliefs, but you never know. An excellent book on Hubbard and scientology is "The bare-faced messiah" by Russel Miller. You can read online: http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 > > wrote: > > > > > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter Richard. Any > > reaction to the story? > > > Strong feelings on the issues involved? > > > > Sure Satvadude, I posted without thinking a bit of context might > > be nice. There is quite a bit of back story. > > > > Basically there are two stories here. First is the group > > themselves I find scientologists fascinating, their group > > is actually pretty much the same as TM, a lot of similar > > concepts like enlightenment, which they call being "Clear" > > and techniques to remove deep stress, "auditing". But there > > is a lot that is different to the TMO, they appear to be > > very aggressive towards nay-sayers, particularly ex-members, > > apparently you have to pay to do an exit course or other > > scientologists are instructed never to speak to you again, > > even family members. You also have to have been a member for > > quite a while before you find out the whole of Ron Hubbards > > scripture, namely that we are descended from aliens that came > > to Earth millions of years ago. They deny all this by the way, > > and they would probably contact me threatening legal advice if > > they read it. So all I can say is I don't know if it's true but > > it fascinates me. I'vealways thought there must be something > > to it or why would people learn? If it wasn't so expensive > > I would join just to see what it's like being in a different > > cult. > > > > People don't like being called cult members. That's the other > > story, being allowed to call a closed secretive religious group, > > that allegedly persecutes its ex-members, a cult is apparently > > illegal. This is recent UK legal history that may not interest > > you but it's causing a storm over here. Since 9/11 the government > > have introduced all sorts of anti-terrorist legislation but it > > gets abused to stop anyone doing anything. > > > > Richard Dawkins started a debate on whether religion is > > an outdated concept, and even a dangerous one, and that > > maybe the countries religious leaders may want to explain > > and justify their beliefs and right to teach others what he > > sees as outdated and useless dogma. The government, trying > > to counter rising Islamophobia, then made it illegal to > > criticise religion, hence the kid getting arrested. All > > this has enlivened debate no end, with the religious > > claiming the right not to have deeply held beliefs > > criticised and the athiests saying why not? It's only > > a meme, a co
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
I pretty much agree with what Hugo said here. The Scientologists are an interesting study in the dynamics of and the evolution of cults. On the one hand, they are majorly persecuted and looked down upon. In some areas (especially Holly- wood), it is OK to say things about Scientologists that you would be lynched for if you said them about Jews or Christians or Hindus. On the other hand, few organizations in human history better deserve the title "cult." I find the idea of them being "proactive" and trying to bribe the police to prevent anyone from calling them a cult in public to be about as cultlike behavior as could possibly exist on the planet. My feeling is that they should just suck it up and admit to being a cult, and find a way to be proud of it. Trying to suppress others who call them a cult only makes them more of a cult. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 > wrote: > > > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter Richard. Any > reaction to the story? > > Strong feelings on the issues involved? > > Sure Satvadude, I posted without thinking a bit of context might > be nice. There is quite a bit of back story. > > Basically there are two stories here. First is the group > themselves I find scientologists fascinating, their group > is actually pretty much the same as TM, a lot of similar > concepts like enlightenment, which they call being "Clear" > and techniques to remove deep stress, "auditing". But there > is a lot that is different to the TMO, they appear to be > very aggressive towards nay-sayers, particularly ex-members, > apparently you have to pay to do an exit course or other > scientologists are instructed never to speak to you again, > even family members. You also have to have been a member for > quite a while before you find out the whole of Ron Hubbards > scripture, namely that we are descended from aliens that came > to Earth millions of years ago. They deny all this by the way, > and they would probably contact me threatening legal advice if > they read it. So all I can say is I don't know if it's true but > it fascinates me. I'vealways thought there must be something > to it or why would people learn? If it wasn't so expensive > I would join just to see what it's like being in a different > cult. > > People don't like being called cult members. That's the other > story, being allowed to call a closed secretive religious group, > that allegedly persecutes its ex-members, a cult is apparently > illegal. This is recent UK legal history that may not interest > you but it's causing a storm over here. Since 9/11 the government > have introduced all sorts of anti-terrorist legislation but it > gets abused to stop anyone doing anything. > > Richard Dawkins started a debate on whether religion is > an outdated concept, and even a dangerous one, and that > maybe the countries religious leaders may want to explain > and justify their beliefs and right to teach others what he > sees as outdated and useless dogma. The government, trying > to counter rising Islamophobia, then made it illegal to > criticise religion, hence the kid getting arrested. All > this has enlivened debate no end, with the religious > claiming the right not to have deeply held beliefs > criticised and the athiests saying why not? It's only > a meme, a collection of ideas isn't it? I think it's > an essential debate and very healthy. Peoples opinions > of my ideas doesn't bother me, others get very sensitive > so the debate is mostly rather civilised and respectful, > though obviously tense at times. It's all good fun but > I doubt anyones opinion will change, you can't reason > someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. > > I hope this kid gets let off, it's totally ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" > > > to describe the Church of Scientology. > > > > > > The unnamed youth was served the summons by City of London > > > police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite > > > the London headquarters of the controversial religion. > > > > > > Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who > > > were outside the church's £23m headquarters near St Paul's > > > cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology > > > as a cult because it was "abusive and insulting". > > > > > > Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, said: "This barmy > > > prosecution makes a mockery of Britain's free speech > > > traditions. After criminalising the use of the word 'cult', > > > perhaps the next step is to ban the words 'war' and 'tax' > > > from peaceful demonstrations?" > > > > > > Ian Haworth, from the Cult Information Centre which > > > provides advice for victims of cults and their families, > > > said: "Th
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter Richard. Any reaction to the story? > Strong feelings on the issues involved? Sure Satvadude, I posted without thinking a bit of context might be nice. There is quite a bit of back story. Basically there are two stories here. First is the group themselves I find scientologists fascinating, their group is actually pretty much the same as TM, a lot of similar concepts like enlightenment, which they call being "Clear" and techniques to remove deep stress, "auditing". But there is a lot that is different to the TMO, they appear to be very aggressive towards nay-sayers, particularly ex-members, apparently you have to pay to do an exit course or other scientologists are instructed never to speak to you again, even family members. You also have to have been a member for quite a while before you find out the whole of Ron Hubbards scripture, namely that we are descended from aliens that came to Earth millions of years ago. They deny all this by the way, and they would probably contact me threatening legal advice if they read it. So all I can say is I don't know if it's true but it fascinates me. I'vealways thought there must be something to it or why would people learn? If it wasn't so expensive I would join just to see what it's like being in a different cult. People don't like being called cult members. That's the other story, being allowed to call a closed secretive religious group, that allegedly persecutes its ex-members, a cult is apparently illegal. This is recent UK legal history that may not interest you but it's causing a storm over here. Since 9/11 the government have introduced all sorts of anti-terrorist legislation but it gets abused to stop anyone doing anything. Richard Dawkins started a debate on whether religion is an outdated concept, and even a dangerous one, and that maybe the countries religious leaders may want to explain and justify their beliefs and right to teach others what he sees as outdated and useless dogma. The government, trying to counter rising Islamophobia, then made it illegal to criticise religion, hence the kid getting arrested. All this has enlivened debate no end, with the religious claiming the right not to have deeply held beliefs criticised and the athiests saying why not? It's only a meme, a collection of ideas isn't it? I think it's an essential debate and very healthy. Peoples opinions of my ideas doesn't bother me, others get very sensitive so the debate is mostly rather civilised and respectful, though obviously tense at times. It's all good fun but I doubt anyones opinion will change, you can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. I hope this kid gets let off, it's totally ridiculous. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > > > A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" > > to describe the Church of Scientology. > > > > The unnamed youth was served the summons by City of London > > police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite > > the London headquarters of the controversial religion. > > > > Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who > > were outside the church's £23m headquarters near St Paul's > > cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology > > as a cult because it was "abusive and insulting". > > > > Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, said: "This barmy > > prosecution makes a mockery of Britain's free speech > > traditions. After criminalising the use of the word 'cult', > > perhaps the next step is to ban the words 'war' and 'tax' > > from peaceful demonstrations?" > > > > Ian Haworth, from the Cult Information Centre which > > provides advice for victims of cults and their families, > > said: "This is an extraordinary situation. If it wasn't > > so serious it would be farcical. The police's job is to > > protect and serve. Who is being served and who is being > > protected in this situation? I find it very worrying. > > > > "Scientology is well known to my organisation, and has > > been of great concern to me for 22 years. I get many > > calls from families with loved ones involved and ex-members > > who are in need of one form of help." > > > > The City of London police came under fire two years ago > > when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from > > constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth > > thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology. > > > > Full article: > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1 > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought police.
I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter Richard. Any reaction to the story? Strong feelings on the issues involved? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" > to describe the Church of Scientology. > > The unnamed youth was served the summons by City of London > police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite > the London headquarters of the controversial religion. > > Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who > were outside the church's £23m headquarters near St Paul's > cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology > as a cult because it was "abusive and insulting". > > Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, said: "This barmy > prosecution makes a mockery of Britain's free speech > traditions. After criminalising the use of the word 'cult', > perhaps the next step is to ban the words 'war' and 'tax' > from peaceful demonstrations?" > > Ian Haworth, from the Cult Information Centre which > provides advice for victims of cults and their families, > said: "This is an extraordinary situation. If it wasn't > so serious it would be farcical. The police's job is to > protect and serve. Who is being served and who is being > protected in this situation? I find it very worrying. > > "Scientology is well known to my organisation, and has > been of great concern to me for 22 years. I get many > calls from families with loved ones involved and ex-members > who are in need of one form of help." > > The City of London police came under fire two years ago > when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from > constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth > thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology. > > Full article: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1 >
