BELIEVE!

[Guest guest]

At 16:37 06/01/02 +0000, you wrote:

>It is the nature of gifts that they are offered freely, and taken or not

>taken freely. Gifts such as poetry are offered and people are free to

>appreciate them or not. Ideas and beliefs seem to be endlessly debateable,

>but a belief in Wim or his siddhis is not required of anyone on this list.

>It is a moot point, and it is personalizing the discussion beyond any hope

>of a free and open discussion of siddhas.

>

>Please keep these distinctions in mind in order to avoid any semblance of

>business promotion in future, Wim.

>

>Gloria

 

 

Dear Gloria, Dear Wim,

Dear Friends.

I BELIEVE!

Can I buy some Siddhis?

I seems that (yet again) certain forms

of behaviour are acceptable and others not.

 

Dear Friends,

If a charlatan wishes to trade with the credulous

who are we to interfere with their joint karma?

If a Guru charges for tuition

who says the cost should be zero?

What value is in giving what no one can

assimilate until prepared?

If your heart is pure what have you to fear?

If you are developing a sense of sense (a siddhi?)

what will you know?

 

 

>Who starts a cult?

>Some cult leaders are unequivocally psychopaths and con-artists, but others

>spring from more complex roots. The late British psychiatrist Anthony Storr

>published a book (Feet of Clay) that discusses common attributes in those

>who become cult leaders. There often appears in their backgrounds some kind

>of serious psychological crisis that they have surmounted by interpreting it

>as a special calling to some higher purpose. Even those gurus who start out

>believing they are on an inspired mission to improve the lives of others

>usually succumb to the seductions of unbridled adoration and privilege,

>resulting ultimately in disaster. It is as Lord Acton so wisely admonished:

>"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

>

> - Barry Beyerstein

 

>~Barry Beyerstein is professor of neuropsychology at Simon Fraser University

>in Canada. He is a leading skeptic, on the Executive Council of the

>Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

>(CSICOP), and a frequent contributor to The Skeptical Inquirer.~

 

'Feet of Clay' is an excellent example of

credulous skeptical thought.

It starts from the premise that people

want or need 'the truth'.

As such it is a partial truth but it is MUCH

BETTER than most credulous devotees

and Gurus deserve . . .

 

>Who is vulnerable to cult recruitment?

>

>- We all are at some time in our lives. Most of us satisfy the foregoing

>needs within our normal range of relationships and this gives us a certain

>amount of protection, as long as we stay within that framework.

 

If we take the cult of skepticism,

linear scientific thinking -

we are indeed all psychologically

prone to such cultic thinking . . .

 

>- Cult recruits are not any more likely to be mentally ill, less

>intelligent, or less well educated than the average population.

 

I remember a friend (studying psychology)

saying to me that psychologists are some

of the weirdest people he had come across.

I would say most sceptiks are more intelligent

(something they share with the paranoid) than

the average. People prone to their 'assertions'

are probably your average cult joiner/normal person

 

>Nor are they necessarily more gullible on average. They do tend, however,

>to be "seekers," constantly looking for pat answers and magical solutions

>for personal or societal problems. They are often driven to find answers

>(any answer) to the great metaphysical questions, rather than live with

>uncertainty. Those who have a higher tolerance for ambiguity can live with

>the acceptance that such things are ultimately unknowable.

 

There is also those (skeptics for example) who

are willing to disprove without any regard

or understanding of the emotional damage.

'Truth above All' is a shallow understanding

- just as the very things they expose

may be 'shallow'

 

>- How can we recognize a cult? A fair use of the cult label for a

>questionable organization would require the presence of most of the items

>on the following checklist.

>

>-\

-

>

>Does the group:

>

>(a) engage in deceptive recruitment practices? (recruiters typically

>disguise the true nature and aims of the group when seeking converts)

 

One of the tricks of decievers

is to expose other tricksters.

What are the true motives

of skeptics.

Your welfare? Your good?

Their sense of 'truth'?

 

>(b) tend to target vulnerable individuals, as outlined above?

 

We are all vulnerable.

Skeptics are vulnerable to logic.

You can argue with them until

they join a cult (being just as

irrational as the rest of us)

 

>© offer unconditional affirmation and support initially, but soon make

>its continuance contingent on obedience?

 

Sounds to me like all human group behaviour.

For example skeptics will argue (initial stimulation)

and as soon as sufficient realignment or feelings

of affirmation exist they will be content.

Their 'truth' has been asserted.

Just like cult leaders - they know the truth.

 

>(d) have a closed social system that makes a special effort to isolate

>acolytes from family, friends, etc.?

 

Skeptism really is a cult!

It's first job is to isolate any belief

that is people friendly or familiar

and superimpose a cold and sterile

world (the truth?) on the world . . .

 

>(e) use constant bombardment with pro-group and pro-leader messages and

>exclusion of other messages?

>

>(f) have a rigid, authoritarian hierarchy?

>

>(g) have a leader and ruling clique that are perceived to possess

>infallible insight, supernatural powers, etc.? Do they claim to have been

>chosen by some higher authority to rule, and thus to be excused from the

>normal social restrictions on one's behavior?

>

>(h) have an eclectic, often muddled and internally contradictory, set of

>teachings - usually a magic-laden philosophy that claims to have

>infallible answers to those "big ticket" questions of existence?

>

>(i) have a strict behavior code that governs all aspects of how one should

>think, feel, and act? Are there strong penalties for deviation?

>

>(j) instill fear of outsiders (the "bunker mentality")? Does the group try

>to convince members they are powerless to act without the group's support

>and that the world "out there" is uncaring and hostile?

>

>(k) engage in major forms of exploitation (e.g., financial, occupational,

>or sexual - of self, spouse, or children)?

>

>(l) demand immoral, unethical, or illegal activity on the part of its members?

 

. . . and so on and so forth.

Just remember

apply the conditions to

the conditioner

LOL

 

 

Credulous Lobster Charlatan

Donations (acceptable transaction?) to the usual address.