|
|
|
but that sounds just like a cult recruitment set-up.
|
|
|
|
I was just thinking about this. It might seem simple to some, but it occurred to me that cults count on obsessive behavior or cultivating obsessive behavior in those who might have a tendency in that direction (most of us, maybe?).I put forth a hypothesis: Without obsession, you have no cult. Everything cults do seems to be designed to increase obsessiveness. "M, to the exclusion of everything else" would be one such example of cultivating obsessive behavior. Total surrender, thinking of nothing else, doing nothing else, etc, etc. What is a hallmark of obsessive behavior? Besides the obvious, one thing I've noticed is that those who obsess over "anything," tend to ignore the faults in that thing. When they obsess, any fault brought to their attention concerning the thing "obsessed" is magically transformed, in their own minds, to a personal attack...... and the inevitable reaction of circling thet wagons the result. In the case of someone with a pet hypothesis, for example, they gather evidence that proves vice any evidence that disproves. That is obsessive and it is very easy to fall into that trap. Excitement breeds excitement and, I think, obsession breeds obsession. So those with a tendency in that direction will respond positively to perceived obsessive behavior. People, in general, seem to want to be excited/obsessed over "something," right? So, if someone has something bad to say about this hypothesis..... let me modify that..... if anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please let me know right away, so I don't get too attached to it and start obsessing 
Modified by NAR at Tue, Mar 28, 2006, 15:51:36
|
|
|
|
I think it would be fair to say I'm obsessive about music, especially when a genre wide ting is really doing it for me, say as with dubstep at the mo, buttttt that obsession only has value while I feel the tracks are out there that are really moving me deep. As soon as the magic in a genre starts weakening which it nearly always does after 2-3 years, so my obsession for that genre weakens.
Jethro will confirm how obsessive verging on religious I was about drum'n'bass, another dance music sub-genre, from about 93-97 ish, when I felt it weakening as a genre quite noticeably there was an obvious weakening of my obsession. And not only that but I didn't start gettiong obsessive about some other genre straight away either. In fact although I've been checking out humungous amounts of music since, dubstep is the first one that's done it for me at that level of intensity since drum'n'bass, although my brazilian ting was pretty strong from about 2003-5.
And all my mates are pretty similar in general to this.
Some revision of the hypothesis required methinks.
And as they say at DMZ (short for digital mystikz ) come meditate on bass weight
|
|
|
|
You don't sound obsessed to me. Very interested? Yes, certainly, but if you can think about anything other than music (for any real length of time) or can go without it in your ears ("losing touch" for awhile), then I would say that you aren't truely obsessed Not only that, your evidence is anecdotal....... so is mine, but never mind that
|
|
|
|
Obsession is so obviously pathological that it doesn't tend to last. I think the danger is more mundane--a steady "boiled frog" acclimatisation to unpleasant or questionable activities. I've noticed this is a Christian context, in the people who--get this--enjoy church services. Now, I find that baffling, and I've been a Christian for nearly thirty years. I guess my inner 5-year-old is alive and well. It's like the company coffee machine and its ghastly cheap coffee. After enough years drinking it you get to like the taste. Neville B
|
|
|
|
Neville,
It is pathological, but it does last if something or someone doesn't intervene.Now, I'm not a psychiatrist or anything of that sort, but when I see how difficult it is for many people to leave a cult, it seems that your "pathological" argument would reinforce my argument. When the goober and personal liberation become the all-encompassing thoughts in your head, it is very hard to make them go away. Even those who WANT those thoughts to go away have a very difficult time with that (it would appear). Why do some very notable people pussy-foot around the idea that they have been utterly bamboozled by a fraud? Maybe because they leave a little doubt about "who he might be" in their heads? "Maybe he IS god," etc, etc. THAT, in my humble opinion, can only be explained by total obsession and the aftereffects of trying to deal with that obsession. OK...... blow it out of the water....... PLEASE????? I'm getting attached to my hypothesis and I can't stand up
|
|
|
|
You are a professional in this field, if I remember correctly. What do you think about it? Totally boneheaded hypothesis or possible? YOU make the call!
|
|
|
|
Hi NAR, as it happens I’ve been collecting together some past and present writings for a ‘cult-spotter’s’ web-page, looking at the psychology of cult-think. So if you don’t mind me adapting something I’ve written before… I think a necessary requirement for the obsessional behaviour of cults and the ignoring of obvious flaws is what I call ‘trance logic’. I’ve compiled an ‘ignoble eight-fold path’ of the main principles. I’d be interested to see whether these ring true for other exes. >>>>> Trance Logic 'Trance logic' describes a phenomenon shown by people under hypnosis, defined as: 'a way of thinking … that allows a person to entertain as real phenomena, notions and images that are inherently contradictory, such as seeing two people in place of one.' It doesn’t matter whether a psychologist believes in ‘hypnosis’ and 'trance states', or, like me, are skeptical, since both schools of opinion agree that the hypnotic subject does not really perceive what they claim to perceive. They may see black as white, hear silence as sound, but when the hypnotist tells the subject ‘I am invisible’ and the subject reports: 'yes, I can see right through you', they will be unable to identify what is hidden behind the hypnotist's back. So whatever is happening must involve the person either lying about their experiences, or else persuading themselves that, say, black really is white, silence is sound, etc., against the evidence of their senses. Trance logic also refers to a subject's apparent ability to hold simultaneously two incompatible points of view, or to adopt an untenable belief in the face of contradictory evidence. There is a strong parallel between these dysfunctional thought processes and those of cult members. In each case the trusting follower 'entertains notions that are inherently contradictory'. Each example is as irresolvably paradoxical as Dr Doolittle's ‘push-me-pull-you’ trying to win the Derby in both directions at once: (1) The humility-autocracy paradox: Spiritual Masters are revered for their shining humility. Yet each cult is fuelled by anything from obligatory deference (low-grade gas for 950 cc. cult-engine) to unquestioning obedience (Moonie-grade, high performance machines). The Master neither seeks nor welcomes advice or second opinion. Just serve your humble servant of humanity and shut up. 'I didn't wish or ask for all this power, but now I have got it you will damned well do as I ask...' (2) The avarice-detachment paradox: The Master is presented as being above the petty desires and concerns of this world, beyond attachment to material possessions. The Master is also significantly wealthier than his followers - a wealth invariably provided by those followers. 'I never asked nor wished for these luxury goods, but since you are writing a shopping list anyway - and in the interests of your spiritual growth – remember that I prefer the best of everything money can buy.' (3) The effort-grace paradox: Relax and bask in the master's grace as it transports you to his Kingdom of Love as sweetly as a slow boat to China. If the journey gets rough or you capsize off Cape Good Hope, then you, rather than he have failed to put in the appropriate effort to stay afloat. (4) The do-as-I-don't-do paradox: One of "Waco wacko" David Koresh’s less savoury habits was the compulsory seduction of his celibate male devotees' wives and teenage daughters. Similarly, Sai Baba, Da Free John and numerous other gurus have used power and status to exploit followers sexually. In matters of drug-taking, diet and lifestyle, the strictures, obligations and spiritual observances imposed on devotees are seldom demonstrated by the cult leader, especially where sex or money are involved. (5) Xeno's paradox: As an introduction to calculus maths students may encounter 'Xeno's paradox'. A scenario is presented where a tortoise and a hare are having a race. The tortoise is given a head start, commencing from a position halfway along the track (call this position 'b', and the hare's starting position 'a'). Xeno's paradox argues that the hare can never catch the tortoise, because by the time the hare has reached position 'b', the tortoise will have moved on to position 'c', and by the time the hare reaches 'c', the tortoise will have gone further to position 'd' etc. ad infinitum. By a similar flawed logic, not even the most conscientious, dedicated follower of a living guru hopes or expects to catch up with or overtake the Master on the spiritual path (in spite of the above 'do-as-I-don't’ principle). (6) Trusting-the-fallible paradox: Ron Hubbard spent his latter years aboard his luxury yacht crewed by unskilled, sea-sick Scientologists, cruising the coastal waters of Spain and North Africa in search of ancient lost treasures (seriously!). No riches were ever located, yet no trust in Hubbard was forfeited by this and other failures to deliver on his promises. The teenage Guru Maharaji swore in 1971 to banish war and establish ‘peace in this world within his lifetime’. In fairness, he might have a decade or so left in which to deliver the goods, though progress to date is pretty-well non-existent. In 1954, Marian Keech, the leader of a UFO cult predicted the end of the world by flooding on the 21st December that year. Only she and her devotees would be saved. As it turned out, the world was spared its apocalypse. The devotees subsequently attributed the deliverance to Keech’s foreknowledge and their subsequent prayers. And so on... Most telling in these cases is not the fact that the guru is fallible, but that no error of judgement is conceded on their part. Evidence of broken promises is buried and forgotten by devotees, who somehow manage to sustain a trust in their leader’s infallibility. (7) The commit-before-testing paradox. Cults claim to be above scriptural dogma and received beliefs, dealing instead in ‘personal experience’, ‘self-knowledge’ or higher ‘consciousness’: a suck-it-and-see recruitment technique. Mainstream religions might use similar terminology: evangelicals urge us to ‘experience of Jesus coming into our hearts’, or ‘feel the Holy Spirit moving’ whilst Catholic communicants report the sensation of wine transubstantiated into blood. But to compare the typical cult run by a living godhead with orthodox religion offers it unwarranted respectability by association. Attaining cult membership typically involves a ritualised initiation going way beyond anything encountered in your local vicar’s confirmation class. Secret meditation techniques, mantras or reiki symbols only become yours for the asking once you have shown self-abnegation, financial investment or expressed faith in the guru. In each case, commitment is the requisite first step to achieving the advertised experience. But without the experience, there is nothing to place faith in. Go figure! (8) The up-the-down-elevator paradox. Cult members see themselves as ascending an upward path towards an ultimate, sublime endpoint – variously-termed ‘nirvana’, ‘self-realisation’, ‘samsara’, etc. Keeping eyes fixed firmly ahead devotees see Jacob's Ladder rising and sense their own loyal feet ascending. But glancing to either side, they wonder why, over the years, their surroundings never change – that they are no higher up, further along or deeper in. In fact, their transcendent experiences are pretty much the same as when they were on the bottom rung. A rational outsider sees only a damned fool trying to walk up the 'down' elevator. This short analysis offers no explanations of how people’s thinking becomes so disastrously subverted, but once that line has been crossed, a good deal of mutual or group-reinforcement becomes essential to sustain the sheer irrationality of one’s belief that ‘everything is normal’ in spite of the evidence. By everyday standards, this perpetual reinforcement takes on the semblance of obsession. (And the parallel with hypnosis makes me wonder whether all of us might be more suggestible than we care to acknowledge, since there are no reliable predictors of what kind of person becomes involved with a cult.) Maybe the only release from trance logic comes from a sharp shake on the shoulder and kindly, quiet voice urging the subject to 'WAKE UP!' >>>>>>
Modified by Nigel at Thu, Mar 30, 2006, 03:26:39
|
|
|
|
That was an excellent analysis, in my opinion. Funny you should mention "trance," too. That is a very good description of how I felt everytime I meditated. Sitting in the large auditoriums listening to the squeaky voice of the master exhort us to ........ exhort us to what? I never did figure that out. But, trance-state would certainly be an apt description. Of course, as you and I have discussed before, so much of your work involves anecdotal evidence that the word that works for me (e.g. trance) to descibe the "feeling" may be completely off the wall for someone else. It all depends upon the interpretation of that word. Still, I think you are right on the money! It works for me
|
|
|
|
Nigel,
This brings up something that I hadn't really considered in this particular light. The trance-state, to which you refer, is the direct outcome of the desire to stop thinking. The reasons that those paradoxes you mention exist is due to the necessary forethought (in almost every religion, if not all of them) that thinking, itself, is a “bad” thing.For the western theist, religion requires blind acceptance that there is a god. You aren't to doubt that “fact,” period. In fact, this applies to eastern religions, as well. I can't think of a single one that doesn't require the initiate to “believe first.” Even M, who claims that you can “try it” and throw it away if you don't like it, REQUIRES sitting in front of a tv screen for hours listening to the mind-numbing diatribe prior to being given that which is supposed to be truth. The funny thing is this...... another paradox you can add to your list: Almost every one of the holy books talks about how easy it is to fall away and how hard it is to stick with it. I disagree! Due to my upbringing, I always assumed there was an all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere-present god of some sort. I never wavered from that belief. The proper way to worship or experience that supreme being was the ONLY question. The “existence” was just automatically assumed. Unlike what the books say, the HARDEST thing that I ever did was admit, to myself and others, that I just don't believe in a god. It took years of schooling, questioning and “soul searching” to finally admit that! It took a ton of proof, certainly more proof than I ever required to “believe” in a god, that nature could, on its own, do what has been done in the universe. No plan and no designer necessary. So, even on that simple point (e.g. falling away) the holy books get it wrong! It is HARD, not easy. This, of course, depends upon your upbringing, but I think it is probably hard for everyone, quite frankly. My only real questions to a religious person are these: Why is thinking a bad thing? Why is using the thing that god supposedly gave you a bad thing? Why can't god stand up to any scrutiny? Why do I have to blindly believe? Personally, I like it when “my child” questions something in astronomy, for example. I like it when she investigates for herself! I like it that she doesn't just blindly accept my pronouncements about scientific matters. She checks it out for herself. I encourage that....... it supplies the proof, first hand, as it were. Moreover, why would an all-knowing, all-understanding, infinite being get pissed if I even called his/her/its existence into question. Heck, I'd think he/she/it would ENCOURAGE such an endeavor and would supply the “proofs” for me to see, without the slightest need for prior belief. Thinking is an intrinsic part of that process, no? The only reason that thinking can be considered a bad thing is due to the simple fact that the writers of those books knew that what was said couldn't stand up to the light of a single rational thought. THAT is why thinking is bad, “believers” ....... that is the only logical/rational reason for making those statements. To premies, I ask this: Why were you told to never let doubt enter your mind? Which, in effect, means that if you have doubts, just flush them down the toilet and forget they ever existed. If K is such a great thing, it should stand on its own. The existence of the universe stands on its own. Your own existence stands on its own. Everything around you stands on its own........ but somehow god, K, M whatever...... the most powerful thing(s) in the universe, the thing that “created” the universe, the thing that supposedly maintains the universe, the thing that designed the universe in the first place somehow lacks the ability to withstand a little scrutiny (e.g thought)? So that tells me, quite frankly, that a single rational thought is more powerful than god,,,,,,, that is the natural outcome, no? The supreme cannot stand a single doubt, cannot overpower a single incorrect thought, cannot prove itself at all. What's up with that? Man, this god guy is a real wimp. I take that from my daughter all the time! And don't give me that old saw about “one question leading to many others.” God is supposed to be infinite......... if that is so, then he/she/it have all the time that exists to explain everything. If you are an “eternal being,” then you have all the time that exists to get every single question answered in order. The universe is NOT infinite, so you win....... there aren't infinite questions! Again, this wasn't an easy place to get to...... it took alot of evidence/proof to get me here. "Falling out of the boat is easy," my butt! I really wanted to believe, I really wanted to be an eternal being, I really wanted there to be an all-knowing and loving god...... I really did! Getting to the point where I had to admit that there was no evidence in support of my "desires" was tough! Holy books....... could they possibly be any more wrong on every single point they make? I don't think so..... and there is ample proof of that in each and every one of those "fairly tales."
Modified by NAR at Thu, Mar 30, 2006, 12:40:33
|
|
|
|
>We are right next to a Mega Sainsbury’s and this is the posher part of SE London< Nice to know they're staying away from the not posh part - obviously Sainsbury shoppers are in greater need of 'inner peace' than all those ghastly poor people. N
|
|
|
|
Well, you all know that you get what you pay for...... and you won't get K unless you pay and you pay and you pay!
|
|
|
